3’3“ .3;; $966336“. 1, 666:1. 3643‘ 66661 6331.636" 66,- gfifiéfit Bitfi“ 6.x 3. 666666666 666 61666 116 6.66 6663166 66.231366666636666“ : a 6:666 , 6666’: 6,! 6} 666% 6 $666.3 66:" 3 r 33.3 3 3, 33 .33 33. 3333 3353 6666166666: 3363633333366. 416666 3:6 333;. W? 69666 “(V6331666666 63666616166662660 6 31,;56f66666‘66g6 66“. HIE.::~'5¢ my 3 66-63363. 63633 336333 “‘6 .33 3 1'3 “ 3333 33. 3.3366 6'6: 366663 363 66666666663 666% 3.3 333 6:36:66 6 .3333 3 ~63 ‘ = = 3 6666‘6 66" 66“" 66656366666363 61666666 66‘ .3 . '66 63 33,, ”6 633 3.3.33 .333 ~- = 333 ‘61 “$636638, @666 :3; 'g6‘6666‘t2wm ‘6 ’1‘ 63 ‘66 (66666‘ $666661 “66.6% (6636‘ ‘1, ‘ _.:~‘ .32. 1:425" .'~ “—34. g ‘ - . _' §_~_.3 «.13: ~ f 31} New 36 m .. Ir 3 ' - '3__'__... , *z'r‘E—E‘ L. 33*.— .“ if: ) _ ._- m“- l 63}: :6ng .; 36,. 66666666666666 666666666666666666 61" .6 6 3 {56:66 ‘1 :1 3 61 ”6:631 6 3 6663‘ 66 ., 3 6666:6666 636,3 1; 616;; 666613633 666 66666666 $66 '6366‘666 366 t 6' $3 66666 6 66 J1... at? ‘nL‘fl :fié I 3 3 666' .116 I'IL ‘ ‘ . I. 6 6 6‘6 G166 66666: ‘3‘ 5 *4 A 3«—.m2c:'3‘£1—rtrz; a;£‘é:— ~ -:. 32.: ‘~ - _ .2372“- .5: ':; g3; " . was." 3 , m . sz.‘ . ‘ 2 . -1‘” . A "m. .- ‘ " .V -.--§?'E2: «3 .m ' . 33:33 66‘ ‘19 may; 3,“. , Au H, .3 . 3:3» 3 ‘nIE‘fJ-J" 9 , .1- *r‘ -n. F‘ ' . .3; - ,3 . J. __ ; .c. ~ 3.3 a. -‘ 13L: A. .Jaz‘gi. (—4 v... 4— .:E 4:35 .3531? . ”a 3.. 1 6 6 ' ., '; ; 6 ‘63 H | 3 7, 666 6‘66 36116 . 31"?3- 5" A #115,”! . 2?- _- .':~=v~“" “‘4 fapfihw , c‘ 4‘“ “:éabfl“ .-, >196 36.1%” _ 3m 7&9. 6 " "6" 4 .22.“ -..... .t... 3: was; r. :c- - 3 ‘ 55:29:23: v 3-3.... 3 . ..3 3’ ;; 1:93;.” e.:~3_.._..- ~*" ..__“~'.._g. "3.5:?- .r; ”at: 321” : Lara -3.- *3 ~=;:" 9.25%-.. - ”.12' .3 :51- ' ..-...J..; _ .3.“ V _ " 4 ‘ 3;, .«grth vi} .3..- 3=='=‘ A 15:, .- TEACHERS' kM wag-~99 ‘t‘fi‘i’fifi 1‘. 353.21....‘2? . r K ‘ IL EB R A R I? - IIIIIIIIIIllllllIllllllIllIIIIHIIIlllIIllllIlII 31293 10627 5914 This is to certify that the thesis entitled INSTRUCTIONAL CLIMATE, MASTERY MODEL STRATEGY AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AT DIFFERENT GRADE LEVELS presented by BYONG SUNG KIM has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for P11 . D degree in Educa’c i on Vfl/éa/gzfl/WA Date XIII/(IL?! /[L /¢§OI 0-7639 Major professor OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge from circulation recon © 1980 BYONG SUNG KIM All Rights Reserved TEACHERS' INSTRUCTIONAL CLIMATE, MASTERY MODEL STRATEGY AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AT DIFFERENT GRADE LEVELS By Byong Sung Kim A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education I980 fl :7! TEACHERS' INSTRUCTIONAL CLIMATE, MASTERY MODEL STRATEGY AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AT DIFFERENT GRADE LEVELS By Byong Sung Kim The study was designed to investigate how teachers' instruc- tional climate and instructional conditions interrelate to bring forth mastery implementation which, in turn, is associated with student academic achievement. Teacher climate, in this study, is defined as a part of the school learning climate, and consists of teacher expectations, evaluations, and academic norms of school. Specifically, this study intended to examine the relationship between the teachers' instructional climate and classroom instructional conditions with regard to student academic achievement, and to inves- tigate how teachers' climate is associated with the provision of instructional conditions, and finally, to investigate how the climate variables and instructional conditions are interrelated with mastery model implementation. To investigate these problems, it is generally hypothesized that the differential teachers' climate is associated with the differ- ential use of mastery strategies. Simply, it means that teachers with higher expectations-evaluations use the mastery related Byong Sung Kim strategies and procedures to a greater degree than teachers who hold lower expectations-evaluations about student performance. Also, it affects mastery model implementation as well as student outcomes. The sample of the study consisted of 88 elementary school teachers from six schools in a urban industrial school district with similar community characteristics, student racial composition, school parents' socio-economic status, and teacher racial composi- tion in school. Among six schools, three schools contain lower grade levels and three schools contain upper grade levels. The main instrument in this study is part of a major research project to improve School Learning Climate directed by Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover. Originally this questionnaire contained over 60 items. Among them, over 40 items were used for data analysis in this study which were relevant to the teacher climate variables, classroom instructional condition variables, and mastery model strategy vari- ables. The academic tests used in this study were the Basic Skills Achievement Tests (BSAP Tests) in the subjects of reading and mathe- matics. These tests were made by the School District Authority for the 1978-l970 school year. These tests are a sort of criterion- reference test. These instruments measure the performance of students over a set of instructional objectives identified by school district staff as the measure of the skill levels to be attained by the students. The results of the study supported the following significant findings: Byong Sung Kim l. Teacher expectations and evaluations for student perform- ance are positively related to student academic achievement; the combined effectiveness of teacher climates plus instructional condi- tions on Mathematics is more significant than that on Reading. 2. Teacher expectations and evaluations are more powerful indicators over and above the instructional conditions such as group learning game and reinforcement practice in prediction of student achievement. 3. Schools with higher teacher expectations-evaluations are more favorable to the use of group learning game and group-based corrective reinforcement than schools with lower teacher expectations- evaluations. 4. Group learning game is favored for use by the lower grade elementary schools rather than by the upper grade elementary schools. 5. Schools with higher teacher expectations-evaluations are more favorable to principal-staff cooperative planning for mastery learning strategies in terms of unit objective selection and evalua- tion planning than schools with lower teacher climate. 6. Teachers high in mastery expectations use more group- based corrective strategies (team study, small group help, reinstruc- tions) than teachers with lower mastery expectations. 7. Schools with higher teacher expectations-evaluations bring forth the higher level of mastery implementation effects in terms of teacher knowledge, utilization, and school system orientation of mastery learning and practical instructional strategies, than do schools with lower teacher expectations. fl]! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express sincerest appreciation to Dr. Wilbur Brookover, the Committee Chairman, for his academic encouragement, professional insight, warm assistance, and friendship. I also must express sincere thanks to Dr. Cole Brembeck, the Academic Advisor, for all of his planning, humanity, and endless assistance during the period of my doctoral program. My gratitude is extended to Dr. Ruth Useem and Dr. Christopher Clark for their advice and helpful criticism in conducting the research. Appreciation is expressed to the principals and teachers of the participating schools: Alcott, Bethune, Crofort, Emerson, Lincoln, and McCarroll for their excellent cooperation in arranging for the collection of data. A particular word of thanks is directed to the Fulbright Educational Commission for the financial assistance for my overseas program. My thanks are also due to Dr. Douglas Hathaway, Joe Passalacqua, and Stephen Miller for their help in the data col- lection. Further gratitude and appreciation are extended to Mrs. Jacquelin Frese for helping in the exploratory observation in her classroom, and to Mr. Roy Fever, a special help for computer analysis. Finally, I must express my heartful thanks to my wife, Bok-ja, and my children, Ji-sun, Ji—young and Dong-joon. My wife's endless support and encouragement along with that of Sun and Young made the project possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. PROBLEM AND PURPOSE . Statement of the Problem The Purpose of Study . . Assumptions of the Study Statement of Hypotheses . Significance of the Study Overview . . . II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND . The Theoretical Basis . . . . . . . Symbolic Interaction: Reference Groups and Significant Others Teachers' Expectations Theory Teacher Expectations as an Assessment Mastery Model Strategy . . The Research Model and Variables . III. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE School Learning Climate . . . Studies in Organizational Climate . Studies in School Learning Climate Classroom Climate as Learning Conditions Research on Changing School Learning Climate Teacher Expectations and Classroom Climate . . Teacher Expectations as Self-fulfilling Prophe- cies . . . . . The Effects of Induced Expectations Naturalistic Studies and Process Measures Teacher Expectations and Classroom Interaction Socio- phychological Mechanism of Expectancy Effects . . Teacher Expectations about Mastery Procedures . iii Page vi viii Chapter Mastery Model Strategy . The Theoretical Basis for LFM Mastery Learning Research . The Effects of Mastery Model Implementation IV. PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY Samples and Sites of Research . School/Community Type . Sample Procedrues Instrumentation Data Collections Major Variables . . Teacher Climate Variables . . . Instructional Condition Variables . Mastery Model Strategy Planning for Mastery Tutoring/Team Study . Reteaching/Enrichment Strategy Implementation Process Variables Assessment of Student Achievement . Statistical Analysis of Data Testable Hypotheses Statistical Analyses V. RESULTS The Effects of Mastery Implementation on Achieve- ment . . . . . . . . VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary of the Study . The Results of the Study . . Relationship Between Teacher Climate and Instruc- tional Conditions on Achievement . Relationship Between Teacher Climate and Provision of Instructional Conditions . . Relationship Between Teacher Climate and Use of Mastery Learning Strategy. . School Learning Climate and the Effects of Mastery Model Implementation . . . . . . Implications of the Results . Recommendations for Further Research iv 123 128 128 132 132 134 135 137 140 145 Chapter Page APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 A. Teacher Questionnaire Spring 1979 . . . . . . . 149 B. Supplementary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 C. Selected Games from 77 Games for Reading Group . . . 167 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Characteristics of Schools Selected for the Study Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent and Inde- pendent Variables . . . . . Correlations Between the Grade Means on the School Learning Climate Variables and Mean School Grade Achievement . Step-wise Regression Analysis with Teacher Climate, Group Learning Game, and Reinforcement Practice as Independent Variables and Math Achievement on Dependent Variables Means, Standard Deviations, and T-tests for Use of Group Learning Game and Reinforcement Practice between Schools with High and Low Teacher Expectations-Evaluations Means, Standard Deviations, and T-tests for Use of Group Learning Game and Reinforcement Practice between Upper Grade Schools and Lower Grade School . Relationship Between the Grouping Formation for Group Learning Game and the Level of Teacher Expectations- Evaluations . . Mean, Standard Deviation and T-test for Introducing Mastery Objectives Between Schools with Higher and Lower Teacher Expectations-Evaluations . Relationship Between the Level of Teacher Expectations by Schools and the Status of Curriculum Planning for Mastery Objectives Relationship Between Teacher Mastery Expectations and Use of Correctives as Mastery Strategies Relationship Between Mastery Teaching Grouping and Grade Levels . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 81 96 98 100 106 107 110 111 113 114 116 I'I Table l2. 13. 14. 15. I6. 17. 18. 8-1. 8-2. 8-4. Relationship Between Implementation Modules and the Level of Teacher Expectations-Evaluations Means, Standard Deviations, and T-tests for the Mastery Implementation Effects of Mastery Strate- gies, Group Learning Game and Reinforcement Practice between High and Low Expectations Groups . Means, Standard Deviations, and T-tests for Mastery Implementation Effects of Mastery Learning, Group Learning Game and Reinforcement Practice Between High and Low Teacher Expectations-Evaluations Analysis of Variance for the Level of Knowledge of Implementation Model by High vs. Low Expectations Groups . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance for the Level of Use of Imple- mentation Model by High vs. Low Expectations Groups Analysis of Variance for the Level of System Orien- tation of Implementation Model by High vs. Low Expectations Groups . . . . The Percentage of Grade Mastery Levels Between High and Low Expectations Schools . . . Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis with Teacher Climate, Group Game, and Reinforcement Practice as Independent Variables and Achievement as Dependent Variable Means, Standard Deviations and Analysis of Variance for Teacher Expectations—Evaluations Among Six Sampled Schools . . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations and Analysis of Variance for the Use of Group Learning Game Among Six Sampled Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations and Analysis of Variance for the Attitude Toward Reinforcement Practice Among Six Sampled Schools . vii Page 117 120 122 122 123 123 125 162 163 164 165 LIST OF FIGURES Figure l. Symbolic Interaction Thought with Reference Groups . 2. A Schematic Model of School Learning Climate in Relation to Mastery Model Implementation 3. Percent of Teachers Use of 10 Training Modules Among Schools with High Expectations-Evaluations and Teachers with Low Expectations-Evaluations 4. Student Mastery Levels Between High. and Low Expecta- tions Schools . . . . . . . 5. Student Mastery Levels for BSAP Posttest viii Page 23 33 119 126 166 CHAPTER I PROBLEM AND PURPOSE Statement of the Problem Traditionally there have been three major explanations1 of differential school achievement. These three explanations suggest deficiencies in the child, the parents, or the teachers. One of the three major explanations, the IQ-deficit theory suggests that the genetic deficiencies of children explain why they do more poorly in school and in life. The cultural-deficit theory holds that the cul— tural or family backgrounds are so different or lacking that children cannot learn well in school. The third one suggests that teachers hold low expectations for lower-status or minority children, and that is why these children learn less. For a long time, these three theories have been debated in terms of the equal opportunity in educational attainment and socio- economical achievement. During the past decade many studies gave support for the idea that the genetic- and cultural-deficit inter- pretations cannot show strong evidence to explain the inequality of 1Persell (1977) explained these three deficit theories with relation to educational and economic inequality on the basis of a great deal of previous empirical research in her book titled as Education and Inequality, I] of educational and economical attainments in general (Bowles and Gintis, 1976:31-35). Currently much conern has focused on the teachers' variables (teacher-deficit theory), rather than on the IQ- or cultural- deficit explanations. The new trend of school learning is very much concerned with the quality of opportunity to learn. On the basis of many research findings,l3.S. Bloom concluded: "What any person in the world can learn, almost all persons can learn, if provided with appropriate prior and current conditions of learning" (Bloom, l978: 564). Direct evidence can be derived from any mastery learning studies. If provided with favorable learning conditions, most stu- dents become very similar with regard to rate of learning and motiva— tion for further learning. Consequently, the individual differences in the genetic/cultural backgrounds of children can be removed in school learning. Mastery learning is one of several teaching- learning strategies that can succeed in bringing a large proportion of students to a high level of achievement and to high motivation for further learning. Fast and slow students become equal in achievement and effect if provided with the favorable learning conditions. The effect of mastery procedures may be caused by the qualities of teach- ing that can provide the favorable learning conditions. The quality of teaching is closely interrelated to method, strategy and supple- mentary materials. Teachers may generally strive to provide equal opportunities for all students. However, the actual situation under group instruc— tion is far from this ideal. Observations of teacher interactions with students in the classroom demonstrate that teachers direct their teaching and explanation to some students and ignore others. They give much positive reinforcement and encouragement to some students, but not to others, and they encourage active participation in the classroom discussion and question and answer periods from some stu- dents and discourage it from others (Brophy and Good, l970). In relation to these problems, much concern has been given recently to teacher expectancy effects in learning process. The reason is that the teachers make a difference (Good, Biddle and Brophy, l975), and in turn, the ideal of equal opportunity for learning is negated by teacher's own teaching methods and styles of interaction in the classroom. In a similar position, Brookover and his associates (l977) show that school can make a difference. If teachers' expectations play a part in the lesser achieve- ment of certain students, it will be necessary to investigate how teachers form the differential expectations for student performance, and how those expectations influence the teachers' instructional behavior and procedures and, in turn, how they affect student learn- ing outcomes. The present study is mainly concerned with how differential teacher expectations, as well as evaluations related to the use of certain mastery teaching methods and strategies, tend to produce the students' achievement. To define this problem, two assumptions in this study may be described as follows. an First, from a viewpoint of the quality of teaching, teachers form the differential expectations regarding students' performance, and then they use teaching methods and strategies differently in accordance with their differential expectations. Bloom (1968) sug- gestion on this fact states: Each teacher begins a new term (or course) with the expecta- tion that about a third of his students will adequately learn what he has to teach. He expects about a third of his students to fail or to just "get by." . . . This set of expectations, supported by school policies and practices in grading, becomes transmitted to the students through the grading procedures and through the methods and materials of instruction. The system creates a self-fulfilling prophecy such that the final sorting of students through the grading process becomes approximately equivalent to the original expectations (p. 1). Teachers' expectations concerning how students will perform are normal components of the daily classroom functioning. Appropriate expectations are extremely useful in helping teachers organize and prepare for instruction. Inappropriate expectations also powerfully influence teachers' behavior toward students. The teacher's behavior toward the high-expectation students could encourage these students to perform at high levels. Teachers' expectations also affect the evaluations that they make of the student performance (Rubovits and Maehr, 1971; Kester and Letchworth, 1972), and they are correlated with teacher instructional behavior related to the provision of learning opportunities such as degree of assistance, amount of time, and materials provided for the class (Peng, 1974). Secondly, according to the socio-psychological theory of learning, teachers' expectations-evaluations can be represented as the normative behaviors in school social system and impact on the school learning climate and, in turn, they may influence student achievement. Brookover's socio-psychological theory of interaction and learning (1969) would clarify this assumption. He contended that: The school can be thought of as a social system in which the teachers, principal, students, and other staff all come to know the types of behavior that are expected of them. . . . In the contest of the school social system, students come to per- ceive the role definitions, norms, expectations, values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that others hold for them, and act accordingly. . . . Since these sets of norms and behaviors are different for different students, they are likely to behave in accordance with those differing expectations (p. 3). In a school learning situation, these types of expectations- evaluations form the learning climate, and as a result they influence student achievement. The learning climate is based on a socio- psychological theory of interaction and learning. This means that people learn and do the things that the people around them expect them to do. Thus, the behavior of students in school is partly a function of the social and cultural characteristics of the school social system. With relation to teacher expectations and evaluations toward classroom instruction, recent research identifying differences in teacher behavior associated with different teacher expectations about student performance indicates that inequities can occur in the class- room, even when teachers have no intention of slighting students. The Purpose of Study Accordingly, this study is designed to investigate how teachers' instructional climates, expectations, evaluations and academic norms, and instructional conditions interrelate to bring forth mastery model implementation which, in turn, is associated with student academic achievement. Specifically, this study intends to examine the relationship between the school learning climate (teacher's instructional climate plus instructional conditions) and students' achievement, and to investigate how the teacher's climate (expectations, evaluations and academic norms) is associated with the provision of instructional conditions such as group learning games, reinforcement practice and other mastery strategies, and finally to investigte how the climate variables and instructional conditions are interrelated with mastery model implementation. Assumptions of the Study This study begins with an assumption that the implementation of mastery model strategies will have different amounts of effective- ness under different learning environment or climate. The learning climate, in this study, defined as selected teacher expectations, evaluations and academic norms, is related to the provision of teach- ing conditions and student's learning outcomes. The instructional stream is mostly operated by teachers' teaching behavior. Mastery approach also is a sort of instructional procedure, and the strategies, and cannot make an exception. Thus, there are possibilities that the mastery model implementation results in varying effectiveness, according to teachers' readiness for the use of mastery strategies, which is caused from teacher expectations and attitudes toward the mastery curriculum. These kinds of classroom phenomena also depend upon the school learning environment as to whether it is a supportive learning climate or a negative climate. In'most cases, these climate variables can work as school socio-psychological characteristics. Therefore, the present study addresses the following ques- tions: 1. Does mastery model implementation bring the same effects in differential teacher and instructional climates? 2. To what extent do teacher expectations-evaluations explain the level of use of mastery learning strategies? 3. How do the teacher climate variables and instructional condition factors relate to explain the student aca- demic achievements? 4. How can these climate variables contribute to the change of school social system, additionally? To investigate these problems, this study intends to investi- gate the general hypothesis that the differential school learning climates are associated with the differential use of mastery strate- gies which, in turn, are associated with differential levels of student's academic achievement. The school learning climate is defined as a combination of teacher climate and instructional conditions in this study. The climate variables and related mastery model components are as follows: Teacher Climate Variables l. Expectations for Mastery of Basic Skills 2. Evaluations of Academic Ability 3. Teachers' Academic Norms Instructional Condition Variables 1. Group Learning Game 2. Reinforcement Practice 3. Study Grouping Patterns 4. Staff Planning and Support Mastery_Model Strategies 1. Planning for Mastery 2. Tutoring/Team Study 3. Reteaching/Enrichment Strategies 4. Mastery Implementation Variables a. Individual Knowledge b. Individual Use c. System Orientation Statement of Hypotheses On the basis of research assumptions and variables mentioned above, some associational relationships form the basis of related hypotheses of this study. First, the associational relationships of teacher instruc- tional climate and instructional conditions to student achievement is the primary concern in the entire model. A number of studies indicated the associational relationship between climate factors and achievement. Brookover, et a1. (1977) examined the proposition that the differences in school climate explain much of the differences in achievement between schools. With a similar position toward measuring school academic climates, much of the variance in academic achievement were explained by the school norms and expectations variables (McDill and Rigsby, 1973). But this study is primarily concerned with the classroom instructional climate, such as teacher expectations and evaluations, which in turn affect on instructional behaviors between teacher and students. As a behavioral approach, Brophy and Good (1970) found similar teaching behavior when teachers developed their expectations concerning student performance. Otherwise, Garner Bing's (1973) model postu- lated the expectancy-achievement relation. A great deal of data have been dealt empirically with the expectancy-achievement relation. These previous studies covered the school learning climate or instructional environment in many different ways and a great number of different measures of climate were used. Many different concep- tions were applied in order to define the learning climate from the normative compositions to the teacher-students behavioral inter- action. The position of this study is more closed to the classroom behavioral interaction in defining the school learning climate. Second, the level of teacher's utilization of mastery model strategy is associationally related to teacher's knowledge and cooperative support in school social system. fl 10 The use of mastery strategies is closely related to teach- ers' awareness and attitudes on mastery curriculum. Also it is influenced by the staff cooperation in terms of curriculum planning and supportive atmosphere in school social system. There is no direct literature in this area. Few previous studies indicated that mastery teacher training and use of mastery learning program brought the improvement of teacher's attitude toward mastery curriculum (Okey, 1976; Anderson, et al., 1976). This study intends to approach different directions, such as how the teacher's perceptual and attitudinal factors and a coopera- tive system in school society can relate to the degree of mastery model and related strategy use. In other words, this factor is concerned with the extent to which teacher's attitude and belief on mastery curricula impacts the implementation of mastery program knowledge and utilization. Third, the relationship between mastery strategy components and schoollearningclimate can explain the effectiveness of mastery implementation as well as student achievement. Teachers use their expectations concerning student's perform- ance as a basis for designing instructional methods and preparation of learning materials. These activities involve the specification for learning objectives, use of diagnostic tests, adaptation of the alternative correctives for individual student, and so on. This kind of teacher behavior provides an important part of the school learn- ing climate, as well as classroom instructional conditions in which 11 mastery preferred strategies are either implemented or restricted to use. In this sense, this study investigates the possible relation- ship between the school climate and mastery model strategy, which may affect some relevant implementation factors such as knowledge, utilization and system orientation of school social system. According to these types of relationships among suggested research questions and variables, this study states the following measureable hypotheses. Hypothesis 1: Teacher climate and instructional conditions variables will be positively related to student academic achievement. Hypothesis 2: Among associational school climate variables, teacher climate measures (expectations, evaluations, academic norms) will be more powerful indicators in predicting student academic achievement than instruc- tional condition measures. Hypothesis 3: Schools high in teacher expectations-evaluations score will use the group learning game more frequently than schools with low teacher expectations-evaluations. Hypothesis 4: Schools high in teacher expectations-evaluations will show more favorable attitudes toward group corrective reinforcement practice than will those with low expectations- evaluations. Hypothesis 5: Group learning games will be used more frequently for lower grade levels than will the upper grade levels. Also reinforcement practice will be used more frequently for the upper grade levels rather than with the lower grade levels in elementary school. Hypothesis 6: Schools high in teacher expectations-evaluations will be more favorable toward mixed grouping learning games than those with lower expectations-evaluations. Hypothesis 7: Teacher climate will be highly associated with the staff planning for basic skills objectives. Schools high in teacher climate will introduce more frequently the basic skills objectives than will the lower climate schools. 12 Hypothesis 8: Schools high in teacher climate will adapt more principal-teacher joint planning for mastery strategies than will the lower teacher climate schools. Hypothesis 9: Teacher high in mastery expectations score will use more alternative correctives for mastery strategies than will teacher with lower mastery expectations score. Hypothesis 10: The lower grade level of schools will be more favorable to the whole group instruction (mixed grouping) for mastery learning than will the upper grade level of schools. Hypothesis 11: Schools high in teacher climate school have a higher proportion in use of teacher training modules than do schools with lower teacher climate. Hypothesis 12: Schools high in teacher mastery expectations have a higher level of mastery implementation effects in terms of teacher knowledge, use, and system orientation of mastery learning and instructional strategies than do schools with low mastery expectations. Significance of the Study! Over the past four decades there has been a great deal of research on teacher characteristics. Based on the research done to date, we may conclude that the characteristics of teachers have little to do with learning of their students. In general, the relationship between teacher characteristics and student learning has typically be represented by correlations of less than +.20 (Bloom, 1980: 380). Thus the new direction of classroom research is concerned with the quality of teaching rather than with the quality of teachers. These qualities of teaching are alterable through in-service educa- tion that provides teachers with feedback on what they are doing, and what they can do to alter the situation. This study intends to contribute to such kinds of new trends in the education field. 13 The approach for mastery learning is not a panacea for all the instructional problems facing the classroom teacher. The impor- tant thing is how the teacher can manipulate the strategies into a proper condition in classroom teaching, and how the teacher provides a moderate environment for implementation for this strategy. Teacher expectations and evaluations can be assumed as a set of important conditions for this purpose. As suggested by Benjamin S. Bloom (1968), teachers' expecta- tions, supported by school policies and practices in grading, become transmitted to the students through the methods and materials of instruction. In this sense, the premise that the effect of mastery implementation will be facilitated if teacher expectations-evaluations become a positive environment is basic to this study. In relation to this premise, some underlying reasons are as follows: The first reason relates to the need of a new trend for mastery approach. The new trend is closely connected to the develop— ment and dissemination program concerning teacher—training program module and material development. This trend of mastery learning approach has been concerned mainly with the supportive environment condition factors which are related to teacher expectations and attitude toward mastery strategy and curriculum. This study will provide the basic provision for further investigation of mastery implementation effectiveness. Secondly, until this data, numerous research studies of mastery approach have been conducted with concerns of the learner's 14 characteristics and instructional variables. Thus, the importance of group dynamics in the group instructional process was not of too much concern to mastery learning studies. In contrast, this study is largely concerned with the group process in terms of curriculum planning, group—based learning game and teaching grouping patterns. Even though the mastery strategies implied the group-based activities, a classroom reality is far from this goal in the process of mastery treatments. Thirdly, a great deal of research has been concerned with the relationship of teacher expectancy and the inequality of edu- cational opportunities. It is a movement from the study of the actors (teacher and students) to the study of teaching and learning as they take place under specific environment conditions. The most methodological change is the movement from stable or static variables to variables that are alterable as a part of these progresses. As the quality of teaching become more central than characteristics of the teachers, we may see more clearly the kinds of training that can improve teaching and learning. In this sense, this study can sug- gest the variety of conditions that can serve in the equality of educational opportunity through teaching-learning process. Overview This study will follow the following format. Chapter I includes statement of the problem, basic assumptions, the purpose of the study, and significance of the study. 15 Chpater II includes the theoretical basis of this study with relevant research model. Theory for this study will be extrapolated from socio-psychological theory of learning, reference group theory and expectancy theory. In Chapter III the review of literature is presented. This includes the different dimensions of school learn- ing climates, systematic approach for naturalistic and induced expectations studies, and mastery model strategy and implementation effect. The procedures and methodology is followed in Chapter IV. Information in this chapter includes sample, instrumentation, test- able hypotheses, operationalization of variables, and modes of analysis. The analysis of data and findings are presented in Chapter V. Chapter VI includes the summary and conclusions, limitations of the study and implications for further research. CHAPTER II THEORETICAL BACKGROUND This chapter will examine the theoretical basis of the study with special attention of the underlying research model. Theoretical perspectives most pertinent to the study appear in the literature under the rubrics of symbolic interactionism, expectancy theory and mastery model strategy. The Theoretical Basis The theoretical basis of the present study is a combination of the social interaction theory of learning, and the underlying mastery learning theory and practice. Brookover's social-psychological conception of learning is mainly concerned with the school learning climate, which is determined by the aggregate attitude, beliefs, norms, and expectations of the persons who make up the school social system (Brookover and Erickson, 1975: 360). Bloom's philosophical foundations of mastery learning are basically concerned with the appropriate learning conditions in which virtually all students can learn well. Both of these theoretical concepts are largely connected to the proper or appropriate environmental conditions (or situations) in which humans can learn and interact with each other. The former 16 17 focuses on the social interaction aspects of human behavior, and the latter stresses the instructional conditions of human learning. In this sense, they look at the same thing from different angles. One view is from social structure and system factors; the other is from the instructional environment factors. In their mastery philosophy, both authors focused on the creation of the appropriate conditions of learning in schoool, either through the change of school learning climate or through the control of instruc- tional environment. Learning for mastery is a group-based, teacher-paced approach to mastery instruction, wherein students learn, for the most part, cooperatively with their classmates (Block and Burns, 1977: 4). The basic ideas of mastery learning were provided by a conceptual model of school learning developed by John 8. Carroll (1963, 1965). Simply put, Carroll's model proposed that the degree of school learn- ing would be a function of the time the student actually spent, relative to the time he needed to spend. Benjamin Bloom (1968) transformed this conceptual model of school learning into a working model for mastery learning with relevant instructional condition factors. In contrast with Bloom's model, a social interaction model which Brookover has postulated, is concerned with the affective aspects of group dynamics such as group norms, expectations, and school learning climates. The general figures of their models of learning process or environment can be compared as follows. 18 B. S. Bloom W. B. Brookover Learning Structure- Attitudinal- Model Behavioral Model Perceptual Model Learning Cognitive, Affective Group Norms, School Components Entry Behavior Social Climates Learning Internal Structure Social Context, Mechanism External Stimuli External-Internal Stimuli Perspectives Technological Symbolic Interactionism In the behavioral model the teacher presents stimuli to the student, observes or psychometrically assesses the response, and selectly reinforces them. In the structural model, the preprogrammed development of internal mechanisms mainly determine the course of learning. The perceptual model allows for behavioral and structural mechanisms, but holds that the student's conscious perception of internal and external stimuli, and his choices, are the mediating determinants of learning (Walberg, 1976: 142). With relation to these two learning models, the underying theory of this study is primarily concerned with the extent to which the perceptual model of learning can be interrelated to the structual models of learning through the classroom interaction mechanisms. Accordingly, the basic assumption of this study is that the degree of school learning would be a function of the quality of teaching and of the school learning climate which is determined by the aggregate norms, expectations and evaluations held for various members of the group. 19 This study does not intend to test the independent effect of school climate factors separately. As mentioned above, the school climate encompasses a composite of variables as defined and per- ceived by the members of the group. These factors may be broadly conceived as the norms of the social system, and expectations held by various members of the group and communicated to members of the group (Brookover and Erickson, 1975: 364). A series of research studies show that achievement in school is related to the school learning climates (Brookover, et al., 1977). Since successful schools have positive climates, and since some schools have negative climates, there are variations in mastery levels of achievement. Kim, et a1. (1969) indicated through the experimental study that fluctuation from school to school in the percentages of students attaining the mastery criterion appear to have been caused by the variation in the school learning climate and variation in teachers' cooperation. Accordingly, the theoretical perspective most pertinent to this study can be derived from the social interaction theory of learning and the expectation theory of classroom teaching. These basic conceptions stress the influence of reference groups and significant others in the learning-teaching process. From this point of view, students are influenced in their behavior by the expectations-evaluations having been received with relative accuracy in school learning. Basic components of every society and social group are the norms of behavior which characterize the group and its members. 20 Thus the social norms and expectations of others define the appro- priate behavior for persons in various social situations. Boundaries of appropriate or proper behavior are defined by the social norms and expectations of others. Also, each person learns the norms of appropriate behavior through interaction with others who are important or significant to him. These propositions emphasize the importance of the social environment in which the student lives, and his inter- action with others in his social world. Such a conception of human learning has been identified as a social interaction theory, because the individual acquires both the perceptions of appropriate behavior and his ability to learn in interaction with others who are important or significant to him (Brookover and Erickson, 1969: 16). To define this proposition, the socio-psychological perspec- tive of symbolic interaction can be employed in questions concerning the reference groups and the significant others with relevant inter- pretations. Symbolic Interaction: Reference Groups and Significant Others The basic unit of observation for symbolic interactionists is the social act. Mead (1934) and Cooley (1970) content that learning is a social activity involving at least initial interaction with "others." Having been socialized, the individual may engage in "self“ interaction by making indications to himself. The social act takes place because men share meanings. The symbolic interactionism focuses on the nature of interaction, the dynamic social activities taking 21 place between persons. People are constantly undergoing change in interaction, and society is changing through interaction. Interaction implies human beings acting in relation to each others, taking each other into account, acting, perceiving, interpreting, acting again (Charon, 1979: 23). Interaction means mutual social action, individuals communi- cating to each other in what they do, orienting their acts to each other. Thus, we arrive at the significance of symbolic interaction: humans are constantly acting in relation to each other, communicating symbolically in almost everything they do. This interaction has meaning to both the giver and the receiver of the action, thus both persons interact symbolically with themselves as they interact with each other. This is a constant, never-ending process. Symbolic interaction involves interpretation, or ascertain- ing the meaning of the actions or remarks of the other person, and definition, or conveying indications to another person as to how he is to act. Human association consists of a process of such interpretation and definition. Through this process the participants fit their own acts to the ongoing acts of one another and guide others in doing so (Blummer, 1966: 537-38). Elaborating on this basic assumption of social interaction one could support Shneider's definition (1973) or symbolic inter- action as ”the individual using his perceptions of the evaluations- expectations and behaviors and values about himself and any particular situation or set of situations with which he may come in contact. To the extent that the individual regards the ”other" in question as ”significant” he will tend to conform to his perception accordingly (p. 29). 22 To understand the unique and common characteristics of a student involves a knowledge of the groups and persons with whom that student interacts. The group whose standard the individual adopts is the individual's reference groups (Mead, 1934). Reference groups, to Shibutani (1955: 562-69), are simply those groups whose perspectives the individual shares. A reference group is an audience, consisting of real or imagined personifications, to whom certain values are imputed (Shibutani, 1962: 132). And he contended that the human being identifies with a number of social worlds (reference group, societies) learns through communication (symbolic interaction) the perspectives (symbolic/conceptual frameworks, cul- ture) of these social worlds, and uses these perspectives to define or interpret situations that are encountered. Individuals also perceive the effects of their actions,reflect on the usefulness of their per- spectives, and adjust them in the ongoing situations. Through this means, the concept of reference groups can be explained in terms of their functions which connect the individual behavior and social organizational aspects. Thus, in a school social system, the collectivity of teachers and peer group may be the stu- dent's reference groups. The concept ”reference group” is closely related, although not synonymous, with the concept "significant other." "Significant other" is used in the singular to identify real or imaginary persons who influence the individual's belief about himself and his world. In this sense, the two concepts have similar meaning, although reference group has a group connotation 23 and significant other more commonly has an individual connotation (Brookover and Erickson, 1969: 66). From this point of view, Charon (1979: 27) presented a model based on symbolic interactionist thought, utilizing the reference group as a variable intervening to define the perpsective of the relationship between the real situation or other and the behavior of the individual. His model is concerned with understanding how one defines the situation, the reference group one identified with in that situation, the perspective mumcowpmpomaxm so; new: mcmgomme new mcowpw3~m>mumcowumpowaxm gov: zpwz WPoogom mcos< mm_:coz newcwmge op to am: mcmgowmh to pcmocmmuu.m mczmwm 26: m .o: m .02 m .02 o .02 m .02 e .o: m .o: N .02 F .02 . l - l l o E, \ W: W V \ \ c \ m m \ s I 2 \ \ \ \ I \ w .. cm x N .. 3 IL. I . cc L. _ I L I. om . om . on mfioosom mcowpmpowaxm 304 mmmm mpoocom mcowympomaxm sow: mum“; . ow om o3 m, salnpow go asn JBUDPai jo auaoaad 120 in Table l. The schools with higher expectations was identified as ranking above the mean expectations-evluations score. The schools with lower expectations-evaluations was identified as ranking below the mean teachers expectations-evaluations score of the total sample. The mean, standard deviations of two groups are shown in Table 13. For hypothesis testing, t-tests and analysis of variance mehtods were employed. First, to test the mean difference between the groups t-values were calculated in three subcategories related to hypothesis. Each subcategory score represents the sum score of three subscales such as Knowledge, Use, and System Orientation variables. The detailed t-test results of each subscale (9 subscales) TABLE l3.--Means, Standard Deviations, and T-tests for the Mastery Implementation Effects of Mastery Strategies, Group Learning Game and Reinforcement Practice between High and Low Expectation Groups Mastery Strategies Group L. Game Reinforcement Prac. N Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. High Expectations- 46 5.52 1.94 6.00 1.49 5.17 1.37 Evaluations Low Expectations- 42 4.33 2.18 4.78 1.88 4.14 1.56 Evaluations T-Value 2.67 3.34 3.29 Significance .009** .OOl*** .001*** 121 were presented in Table 14. Among nine subcategories, only Rein- forcement Knowledge reveals no significant difference between the two different groups of expectations-evaluations schools. The other eight implementation factors indicated that there are sig- nificant differences in implementation effects between low and high expectations-evaluations schools, with a significance level from .05 to less than .01 in Table 14. When we summarize these results into three implementation criteria, these three categories also indicated that there is a great difference between the two different expectations-evaluations groups of schools in their implementation effects shown as in Tables 15, 16, and 17. When we summarize the three implementation factors, the results of analysis of variance shows a very significant difference in the mean scores between groups through all three implementation factors. Table 15, 16, and 17 presents the results of ANOVA for three implementation effects between high and low mastery expecta- tions groups. We can find that the level of knowledge, use, and system orientation for mastery module implementation reveals a significant difference between the two groups with a significance value of less than .01 in all three factors. And these results are positively related to high mastery expectations group. In relation to Table 13 and 14, we can conclude that the teachers with higher mastery expectations use the group learning game and reinforcement practice more positively for mastery strategy 122 TABLE l4.--Means, Standard Deviations, and T-tests for Mastery Implementation Effects of Mastery Learning, Group Learning Game and Reinforcement Practice Between High and Low Teacher Expectations-Evaluations High . Low . Variables EXPECtat'O" EXPECtat'O” 1- Significance Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Value Mastery Strategies Knowledge 2.07 .80 1.45 .63 4.00 .OO9** Use 1.98 .73 1.33 .75 3.58 .050* System Orientation 1.78 .72 1.21 .73 4.39 .OO7** Group Learning Game d Knowledge .93 .77 1.42 .77 3.08 .OO3** Use 2.26 .68 1.88 .77 2.44 .017* System Orientation .80 .45 1.48 .59 2.89 .005** d Reinforcement Practice Knowledge 1.48 .69 1.31 .68 1.15 .252 Use 1.98 .57 1.45 .59 4.21 .OOl*** System Orientation 1.72 .59 1.38 .58 2.89 .005** TABLE 15.-—Analysis of Variance for the Level of Knowledge of Implementation Model by High vs. Low Expectations Groups Source d.f. SS MS F-Ratio Prob. Between Groups 1 26.83 26.83 8.20 .005** Within Groups 86 281.53 3.27 Total 87 308.36 123 TABLE l6.--Analysis of Variance for the Level of Use of Implementa- tion Model by High vs. Low Expectations Groups Source d.f. SS MS F-ratio Prob. Between Groups 1 35.82 35.82 10.92 .OOl*** Within Groups 86 282.13 3.28 Total 87 317.95 TABLE l7.--Analysis of Variance for the Level of System Orientation of Implementation Model by High vs. Low Expectations Groups Source d.f. SS MS F-ratio Prob. Between Groups 1 24.24 24.24 12.00 .OOO8*** Within Groups 86 173.66 2.02 Total 87 197.90 than do the teachers with lower mastery expectations and, in turn, this classroom phenomenon of teaching affects teacher awareness (knowledge) and readiness of utilization for mastery learning strate- gies. Both of these efforts result in a more favorable climate of mastery implementation as a part of the school system orientation or changes. The Effects of Mastepy Implementation on Achievement Finally, this study attempts to examine the percent of students mastery attainment of the 75 percent criterion level in 124 each grade level. To determine the overall effects of mastery implementation on the students mastery achievement, an additional hypothesis was established as follows: Hypothesis 13: Schools with higher levels of mastery imple- mentation effects produce a higher level of students mastery achievement than do schools with lower levels of mastery implementation effects. As examined in Hypothesis 2, we can see that higher expecta- tions of teachers bring forth better achievement, and also it results in a positive effect on the implementation of mastery strategy in classroom learning. Thus, this hypothesis focused on the combined effects of teachers' climate and mastery strategy on student mastery attainments between grade levels and between subject matters. This hypothesis examined the tendency of student mastery attainment by grade levels depending on the levels of mastery imple- mentation effects. Figure 5, Appendix B, reveals the general trends of mastery achievement in each grade level. In Figure 5, we see two interesting trends. First, students in lower grade level schools exhibit a tendency to reach higher mastery achievement in both areas of subject matter compared to those in upper grade level schools. But students in the third and fourth grades reveal a lower proportion of mastery achievement than do those in other grade levels. Secondly, in Math the slope of the mastery proportion line shows a tendency of decline until fifth grade, while in Reading it shows a tendency of decline until fourth grade. In regard to the mastery levels in Mathematics a higher tendency to achievement is revealed in the grade 125 levels in comparison with the upper grade levels. But in Reading the upper grade levels have a higher mastery tendency compared with the lower grade levels. The mastery level, in this study, is estimated as the per- centage of students who mastered 75 percent of the objectives on the Basic Achievement Skills Program (BASP) administered by the School District. Each objective contained three items, and the mastery of each objective was decided when students answered three of three items correctly at the posttests. The mastery percentage of each grade levels between two expectations-evaluations groups are shown in Table 17. These scores indicate the mean percentage of grade students who mastered 75 percent of the objectives on that instrument. TABLE l7.--The Percentage of Grade Mastery Levels Between High and Low Expectations Schools Score = % Reading Mathematics Grade Low-Exp. High-Exp. Mean' Low-Exp. High-Exp. Mean 1 45.3 48.5 46.5 63.1 70.0 67.6 2 45.0 67.2 59.8 50.7 81.5 71.2 3 29.0 31.4 30.6 58.3 64.5 61.3 4 5.2 6.1 5.7 33.5 37.1 35.3 5 26.1 36.5 30.6 9.8 15.8 13.4 6 30.2 42.1 38.1 31.0 37.4 35.3 126 o_ om om ow om om om ow muPBaEBSBaz mpoogom mcowpmpomaxm so; use saw: cwmzumm mFm>m4 zgmummz u:mu=um--.v mcammd m=_eaam _ meacw mcowpmpomaxm 304111 mcowpmpoqum cmwziii q .om roe .oo .om tow [3A81 Kaaqsew auaaaad g; 6uluieaae auapnqs JO auaoaad 1! 127 These mastery trends of each grade levels between two differ- ent expectations group can be more easily seen by looking at Figure 4. When we look at Figure 3 we see that in Reading and Mathe- matics the slope lines of grade mastery reveal the similar curve. There is a general trend over the two subject matters (Reading and Mathematics) for the high expectation schools to yield higher mastery achievement ratios through all grade levels in comparison to the low expectations schools. The greatest difference in mastery achieve- ment between two expectations groups is shown at second grade in both subject matters. In conjunction with Hypothesis 12, it would seem that higher expectation schools bring forth more mastery implementations effects, which, in turn, are highly associated with the extent of mastery achievement through all grade levels in general. In other words, the teachers' higher expectations for student mastery performance significantly related to the positive effects on mastery implementa- tion, which affect the higher rate of student mastery achievement at all grade levels. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter of the study is presented in three sections. The first section is a summary of the study containing a statement of Uneproblem investigated, the instrument and methodology. A summa- tion of the findings and the resultant conclusions make up the second section. The third and final section contains some implications of the results, and recommendations for further research. Summary of the Stugy The study was designed to investigate how teachers' instruc- tional climate and instructional conditions interrelate to bring forth mastery implementation which, in turn, is associated with student academic achievement. Teacher climate, in this study, is defined as a part of school learning climate, and consists of teacher expectations, evaluations, and academic norms of school. Specifically, this study intended to examine the relation- ship between the teachers' instructional climate and classroom instructional conditions with regard to student academic achievement, and to investigate how teachers' climate is associated with the provision of instructional conditions, and finally, to investigate how the climate variables and instructional conditions are inter- related with mastery model implementation. 128 129 The basic assumption of the study is that mastery model strategy and its implementation will bring the differential effective- ness under different teacher climate and instructional conditions. The research model underlying this study is a combination of the social interaction theory of learning and the practical work of mastery model strategy. Brookover's social-psychological conception of learning is mainly concerned with the school learning climate, which is determined by the aggregate attitude, beliefs, norms, and expectations in a school social system. Bloom's and Block's practical work of mastery model strategy is basically concerned with the appro- priate learning conditions in which virtually all students can learn well. Both of Brookover's and Bloom's theoretical conceptions for mastery approach were largely related to the proper or appropriate environmental conditions or situations. In this sense, they deal with the same purpose from a different approach. Both of them focused on the creation of the appropriate learning conditions, either through the change of school learning climate, or through the control of instructional environment. Referring to these two mastery model approaches for school learning, the undelying theory of the study is primarily concerned with the extent of how the perceptual model of learning can be interrelated to the structual model of learning through the class- room interaction mechanism. Thus the basic theme of the model in this study is that the degree of school learning would be a function of the quality of teaching (instructional conditions) and the learning climate which is determined by the aggregate norms, expectations and a e. .. $315,413 3.” .4 3 a. [3117... . 1.? II ... III. I II... 130 evaluations held for various members of the group. Thus, the model is based on the group-based interaction and instructional conditions, and the effectiveness of group dynamics on achievement. In other words, the study model stated that the teachers' climate, which is defined as expectations, evaluations, and academic norms, is causally interrelated with the instructional conditions and use of mastery strategies in a given learning situation and affects the extent of mastery model implementations (knowledge, utilization, and system orientation) and, in turn, that these interactions will be related to the student achievement. To investigate these problems, it is generally hypothesized that the differential teachers' climate is associated with the differ— ential use of mastery strategies. Simply, it means that teachers with higher expectations-evaluations use the mastery related strategies and procedures to a greater degree than teachers who hold lower expectations—evaluations about student performance. Also, it affects mastery modle implementation as well as student outcomes. The sample of the study consisted of 88 elementary school teachers from six schools in a urban industrial school district with similar community characteristics, student racial composition, school parents' socio-economic status, and teacher racial composition in school. According to the Michigan State Assessment Tests, the mean achievements in this school district revealed scores below the state average. The School Climate Project was introduced into this school district from 1977-1978 academic year as a part of educational efforts 131 to improve student achievement in this area. The schools sampled in this study were involved in that School Climate Project. The previous achievement of six schools were comparable in reading and mathematics. Their achievement levels were near the mean of the school district. Among the six schools, three schools contain lower grade levels and three schools contain upper grade levels. The main instrument in this study is part of a major research project to improve the School Learning Climate directed by Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover. Originally, this questionnaire contained more than 60 items. Among them, more than 40 items were used for data analysis in this study which were relevant to the teacher climate variables, classroom instructional condition variables, and mastery model strategy variables. To measure overall effects of the mastery implementation, the related items were evaluated by two research assistants with regard to teacher knowledge, utilization, and system orientation of mastery learning, group learning games, and reinforcement practice. The academic tests used in this study were the Basic Skills Achievement Tests (BSAP Tests) in the subjects of reading and mathe- matics. These tests were made by the School District Authority for the 1978-1979 school year. These tests are a kind of criterion— reference test. These instruments measure the performance of stu— dents over a set of instructional objectives identified by school district staff as the measure of the skill levels to be attained by the students. 132 The Results of the Study_ Twelve hypotheses were formulated and tested. For the hypothe- sis testing, several kinds of statistical analyses methods are employed. A null form for each of the testing hypotheses is stated along with suitable statistical procedures. For a better understanding, the associational area of hypo- thesis testing summarized the findings with additional explanations as follows. Relationship Between Teacher Climate and Instructional Conditions on Achievement The first hypothesis was formulated to determine if there exists an associational relationship between school learning climate (teacher climate and instructional conditions) and student achieve- ment. The results indicated that the relationship does exist in mathematics but does not exist in reading. The simple and multiple correlations between the two variables were highly significant in mathematics. The single correlations were all significant at .05 or .01 level in mathematics. In total achievement (reading plus mathematics), the relationships exist only with teacher climate. The climate variables showed less relationship in reading. Also multiple correlations revealed about 70 percent of variance between climate variables to explain the achievement in mathematics, and 43 percent of variance in reading. But this associational relationship between climate variables explained more than 50 percent of variance in total achievement. It is important that the significant 133 relationship between teacher climate variables and achievement held in total achievement. But associational relationship between total climate variables (teacher climate and instructional conditions) and achievement was found when mathematics achievement was the criterion, but not in reading. One possible explanation for this discrepancy can be made in terms of the subject matter itself. Reading is non- sequential in nature, and covers a broad sub-area in contents for criterion measures. Therefore, it may be difficult to select common objectives for testing in a particular school district. The second hypothesis established to determine the relative contribution of teacher climate and instructional conditions vari- ables to differences in mean school achievement. To assess the unique contributions of three climate variables to the prediction of school mean achievement, three step-wise multiple regression analysis were employed. More than 33 percent of the total variance in mean math achievement between schools is explained by teacher climate variables (p < .01) after controlling two instructional variables, while about 29 percent and 16 percent of the total variance are explained by group learning games (p < .05), and reinforcement practice (p < .05) after controlling the teacher climate variables. We are able to conclude that teacher climate iszipowerful predictor, over and above the variables of group game and reinforcement practice, in prediction of student achievement. , 1.3.1.1.”... ..AL. ..t. v 1.17.... i 134 Relationship Between Teacher Climate and Provision of Instructional Conditions Hypothesis 3 to Hypothesis 6 were concerned with these rela- tionships. Hypothesis 3 and 4 were tested by t-test statistical method. The result of hypothesis indicated that there is signifi- cant difference in using group learning game depending on the levels of teacher climate. It means that schools with high teacher expec- tations—evaluations for student achievement use group learning games more frequently compared to the schools of counterpart (p < .05). Also, we can conclude in Hypothesis 4 that schools with high teacher expectations-evaluations showed more positive attitude toward group corrective reinforcement compared to the schools of counter- part (p < .02). In connection with Hypothesis 3 and 4, Hypothesis 5 tested the degree of use of group learning game and reinforcement practice by grade levels. The result revealed that the lower grade schools used the group learning game more frequently than did the upper grade schools. But there was no significant difference for use of reinforcement practice between the lower and the upper grade level schools. This hypothesis is an exploratory step for further research. According to human development stages, the younger children of elementary level are easily involved in game situations and motivated to game learning behavior than are older children. But reinforcement practice usually accompanies some reasonable reactions from children 135 in learning situation, and it is also followed by cognitive reactions rather than affective reactions. Thus, reinforcement practice can be assumed to be more effective to upper grade children in elementary schools. The possible explanation of the lack of significant rela- tionship between reinforcement practice and grade levels in Hypothe- sis comes from the nature of scale in this study. Most of the items in this part of the questionnaire consisted of attitudinal measures rather than cognitive practices. Hypothesis 6 was concerned with the grouping format in the group learning game with regard to teacher expectations on achieve- ment. This hypothesis is tested by using the chi-sqare statistical test of relationship among variables. The results indicated that no significant difference exists among the grouping methods of group learning game, depending on the levels of teacher expectations- evaluations for student achievement. Relationship Between Teacher Climate and Use of Mastery Learning,Strategy_ Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9 were to determine the effect of dif- ferent levels of teacher climate on the use of mastery strategies. Hypothesis 7 was concerned with the staff planning for the basic skill objectives depending on the level of teacher expectations-evaluations. As a result, in the average mean score of introducing the basic skill objectives, high climate group indicated almost twice as much as the lower climate group. The mean difference between the two groups 136 revealed that there is a significant difference of introducing objectives between two groups (p < .001). It is found that schools with high teacher climate plan unit learning objectives more fre- quently on the basis of school staff cooperation than schools with lowr teacher climate. The basis skill objectives can be identified as a type of mastery learning objectives in schools sampled for this study. In conjunction to Hypothesis 7, Hypothesis 8 intended to determine the effect of staff cooperation patterns. This hypothesis was examined by using the chi-square test of relationship among variables. The result of testing indicated that for mastery curriculum high expectations-evaluations schools focused on the principal-staff joint planning, but lower expectations schools showed higher propor- tion in staff scheduled pattern. The significant level was less than .01. Also in Hypothesis 9, the result indicated that teachers with high mastery expectations use more alternative mastery corrective method such as team study, tutoring help, and reinstruct/enrichment method compared to teachers with low mastery expectations (p < .05). In addition, Hypothesis 10 was to examine the relationship between the grade levels and mastery learning grouping. The tracking and streaming system in American schools have been the crucial issues. The discrepancy of achievement is more serious in upper grade level than the lower grade level. Thus, upper grade level school was apt to form the ability grouping to facilitate individual progress of learning achievement. 137 The result of this hypothesis was supported with a signifi- cance of less than .05 level. Thus it was found that the lower grade level schools are more favorable to form the mixed group or whole group instruction for mastery teaching than the upper grade level of schools. School Learning Climate and the Effects of Mastery Model Implementation Hypothesis 11 was to examine the relationship between the level of teacher climate and the use of teacher training modules. These modules were used for teacher in-service training in school district during the study period. To test the proportion of use of each module, the chi-square statistical method was employed to test the relationship between two groups. Among ten modules, module 1 (The school learning climate), module 2 (Expectations and mastery learning) and Module 10 (Teacher commitment and student learning) revealed a great difference between two groups. Except Module 3, 5, and 9, a significant difference was found in seven modules between two groups. It was found that higher expectations-evaluations teacher is more positively involved in the use of implementation modules relative to lower expectations- evaluations teacher. Hypothesis 12 was to determine the effect of teacher's mastery expectations on mastery model implementation regarding teachers' knowledge, use, and system orientation. This hypothesis was examined by looking at the mean scores and standard deviations 138 of three subcategories of mastery model implementation between two groups. All three categories of mastery implementation showed a significant difference between the two groups. The detailed t-test result of each category indicated that the teacher group with higher mastery expectations brings much better implementation effects in terms of group learning games, reinforcement practice, and general mastery procedure compared to the lower expectations group. To support this hypothesis, a summation of three implementa- tion factors also tested by analysis of variance method (ANOVA). The three factors were identified as the knowledge, the use, and the system orientation of implementation model of mastery. The results of analysis of variance indicated a great significant difference in the mean scores between two groups through all three implementation factors with a significance level from .005 to less than .001. As a result of both separate analyses, it was found that the teachers with higher mastery expectations use the group learning game and reinforcement practice more positively for mastery strategy than the teacher with lower mastery expectations, and in turn, that this classroom climate affects teachers' awareness and readiness of utilization for mastery learning strategies. The results of the study of selected school learning climates and the statistical analyses supported the following significant findings: 1. Teacher expectations and evaluations for student per- formance are positively related to student academic achievement; the 139 combined effectiveness of teacher climates plus instructional condi- tions on Mathematics is more significant than that on Reading. 2. Teacher expectations and evaluations are more powerful indicators over and above the instructional conditions such as group learning game and reinforcement practice in prediction of student achievement. 3. Schools vwith higher teacher expectations-evaluations are more favorable to the use of group learning game and group-based corrective reinforcement than schools with lower teacher expectations- evaluations. 4. Group learning game is favored for use by the lower grade elementary schools rather than by the upper grade elementary schools. 5. Schools with higher teacher expectations-evaluations are more favorable to principal-staff cooperative planning for mastery learning strategies in terms of unit objective selection and evalua- tion planning than schools with lower teacher climate. 6. Teachers high in mastery expectations use more group-based corrective strategies (team study, small group help, reinstructions) than teachers with lower mastery expectations. 7. Schools with higher teacher expectations-evaluations bring forth the higher level of mastery implementation effects in terms of teacher knowledge, utilization, and school system orientation of mastery learning and practical instructional strategies, than do schools with lower teacher expectations. 8. Overall effects of mastery implementation in schools of higher expectations affect the higher rate of mastery achievement. 140 Implications of the Results The major implication of this study was derived from the effects of teacher's expectations on curriculum planning for mastery learning and the implementation for mastery strategies. In a school social system, the set of teachers' expectations as well as evaluations becomes transmitted to the students through the instructional procedures: the methods and practice of instruc- tion. Teachers' beliefs about student performance as well as about student ability are communicated to students through the group mechan- ism of symbolic interaction, both verbally and nonverbally. It is essential for teachers to have high expectations for themselves as teacher and high expectations for students as learners. Teachers' expectations also affect the evaluations that they make of students' performance, and are correlated with teachers' instructional behavior and the provision of opportunities. The basic assumption of mastery learning is that all children can learn and achieve at a high level. This assumption must be clearly communicated to the students in the form of high teacher expectations. Teacher expectations and subsequent student learning has often been described as the self-fulfilling prophecy. Nearly every type of activity in a classroom represents an opportunity to communicate expectations to students. Many teachers wrongly believe that expectations can be communicated only by formal written and spoken statements. While such vehicles for communicating expectations are important, teacher expectations are also communicated to students in extremely subtle ways. 141 Thus, the first set of implications concerns the importance of creating an appropriate classroom instructional condition through group learning games and reinforcement practice as a supportive learning environment. The strategies teachers use to form group academic games, allocate status roles in group activities, encourage answers, and evaluate student performance are all indications of the expectations they have for students. One effective strategy for giving students an opportunity to practice the materials being taught is the use of group learning games which have several important implications to follow. First, group games should be organized around heterogeneous teams (of five or six students). Second, team competition should result in teams winning rather than in individuals winning. Third, students on a team should be encouraged to help their group member through a variety of peer tutoring strategies. Group games are especially useful in motivating students; they direct their time and attention toward the knowledge and skills the teachers are seeking to teach, and students take great pride in helping their peers in learning. These games clearly convey the expectation that all students can make a positive contribution to their team. The reinforcement practice services a similar function as the reward system. Over time, teachers can significantly increase the level of effort and quality of work exhibited by students if they have an effective reward system and use it appropriately. The 142 reward system present in a classroom and school is an important and complex part of the total instructional process. On one hand, the reinforcement practice should be such that maximum reward goes to those who exhibit high quality of work. On the other hand, this practice needs to accompany the corrective encouragement to make any real effort at completing learning tasks. Teachers should design reward system that both signal an expectation for quality work and encourage even the most reticent to try. The reinforcement practices bring the complementary effects on group learning games. Thus teachers should carefully plan their reward system, use it to the best interests for each student, and above all clearly communicate the “rules of the game" to the students. A second set of implications stems from the underlying variables which are interrelated with the implementation of mastery model strategies. Mastery learning is an instructional orientation to school learning that states the beliefs that all students can, and will, learn if provided the proper conditions for learning. Effective schools have the common belief that all students can learn, and they have adapted an instructional orientation that reflects this belief. The implication of these findings is concerned with the importance of establishing mastery objectives, various communication systems, and the roles to be played by principals and support staff. The mastery learning model provides an extremely useful frame- work for translating broad educational goals into specific instruc- tional objectives and units. Planning the mastery learning model in 143 a school requires substantial planning, staff commitment, coopera- tion, and communication. There are several points to make sure of at this time. First, we indicated that the success of the mastery learning model requires joint planning among staff. The successful accomplishment of these things would be extremely difficult if not impossible without a school-wide communication system. It suggests that a school staff needs to meet regularly in small groups or total staff meetings to plan and evaluate instruction. The second point is the important role of principals in the joint staff planning. They have an especially important role in clarifying and changing a school's learning climate and resulting instructional effectiveness. In the mastery procedures, principals should coordinate the mastery learning model which includes the unit objective planning, support staff for reinstruction, use of the small group activities, evaluation forum, and so forth. Also the principal is responsible for communicating the goals, objectives, and progress to both central administration and the parent community. The third point is that in the context of the mastery learning model, the availability of the support staff (e.g., teacher aides, parent volunteers) represents a valuable instructional resource and should be encouraged. Such support personnel can assist the teachers in providing both reinstruction and enrichment activities for stu- dents. Also in team study or small group study, the mastery learning model provides a framework for the wise use of support staff services in general. 144 Schools differ in their current organizational patterns for curriculum planning and staff cooperation systems for communication. Thus it is sufficient to suggest that if such a forum does exist, it should be used for mastery planning and evaluation; if such a forum does not exist one must be created. The final implication of the study is concerned with the combined effects of teachers' expectations and instructional condi- tions such as group academic games and reinforcement practices which affect student achievement. As noted earlier, teaches' expectations and evaluations are significantly associated with the extent in using mastery model strategies and academic group games which, in turn, impact on aca- demic norms and behaviors of students as well as teachers. A positive school climate with high expectations for all students and a belief that all students can master the basic skills is strongly associated with high achievement. Other factors such as academic team games (Slavin, 1977; Slavin and Devries, 1978), reinforcement practice, and instructional cooperation systems for mastery learning are likewise of equal importance as teachers' expectations. Both of these factors are causally related to student achievement in each grade levels of elementary schools. Recent research indicates that the school learning climate explain the great differences in achievement between schools and among students within schools (Brookover, et al., 1977). More specifically, Peng's (1974) work provides some insight into how 145 teacher expectations and the provision of learning opportunities are related to produce differential pupil achievement. The present study supports the findings of these studies in a position of the combined effects of both findings. The major implication of this study is that the proper instructional conditions with high expecta- tions of teachers brings forth better implementation effects of mastery strategies which result in higher levels of achievement. Recommendations for Further Research The related implication of the present study is concerned with the change of school social system by improving the school social system and by improving the school learning climate, rather than con- centrating on change at the individual level. The staff sets the tone for the school learning climate. The staff members have expec— tations and evaluations of student ability and academic performance that are perceived by the students themselves. Also, instructional programs are carried out by the teachers. Thus successful implemen- tation of a program to improve school learning climate demands that the structual characteristics of curriculum practices, role defini- tions, and policy procedures be consistent with and supportive of the program goals. In this point of view, this study has a delimitation of the factors relative to the validity of changing dynamics in school social system. The changes of school learning climate, in this study, was restricted to the teacher's conceptions of mastery model components rather than the inertia of school social system. It would 146 seem worthwhile to conduct field experimental research which can examine the normative ans structural changes in school social system, rather than the individually oriented program. Lately, one such effort was made by Hathaway (1980). Another delimitation noted for the study restricted the inves- tigation to those school divisions whose principals expressed willing- ness to be involved in the study. Thus, the findings are far from the theoretically attainable prescriptive generalization of teaching, in part because of the difficulty of replicating research findings, and in part because of the enormous differences between classrooms. It has even been suggested that a generalizable prescriptive theory of instruction is an impossible goal, because factors unique to each teaching-learning situation are powerful enough to produce numerous exceptions to every proposed law (Cronback, 1975). Eventually it would seem worthwhile to conduct parallel investigations in a cross- cultural validation and replication studies. Particularly in Korea there has been a series of mastery approach programs in middle schools from 1970. But the main educational problems of mastery implementation have been caused from the school learning climates in terms of the teachers' group morale, staff cooperation and supportive learning environment and so forth. To remedy these problems there was a theoretical inquiry for comprehensive studies of educational climate (Chung, 1976). Even though mastery learning approach was introduced to the DKorean educational arena from 1970, it is still far from the desired 147 attainment of student achievement. Also, the main strategy was restricted to a material development, as curricula components without the improvement of school learning climate relate to the preconcep- tion of teacher to the poor and low-socio-economic background stu- dents. In Korea, as well as American schools, it is strongly recom- mended that the creation of appropriate school learning climate is a more effective remedy for low achievement than the clinical analysis of individual students. It implies that improvement of school achievement has a causal relationship for changing the school learn- ing climate in the context of mastery implementation process. APPENDICES 148 APPENDIX A TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE SPRING 1979 In an effort to improve our work in implementing the school climate project, we would appreciate your completing this questionnaire. The information you give us on this questionniare is completely confidential. No one will see your answers except members of the climate project staff. 149 Please write the name of this school What grade level do you teach? Kindergarten . . . . 0 First . . . . . . . 1 Second ....... 2 Third . ...... 3 Fourth ....... 4 Fifth ....... 5 Sixth ....... 6 Other ....... 7 APPENDIX A-1 TEACHER CLIMATE SCALE 1. On the average, what acheivement level do you expect of the students in this school? Much above national norm . Slightly above national norm . Approximately at national norm . Slightly below national norm Much below national norm . 2. On the average, what achievement level do you expect of the students in your class? Much above national norm . Slightly above national norm . Approximately at national norm . Slightly below national norm Much below national norm . 3. How many of the students in your class do you believe are capable of mastering the basic academic skills at grade level? 90% or more 70% to 89% 50% to 69% 30% to 49% . Less than 30% 150 m-hWN-J UW-POJN-d (fl-wa-J 151 How many of the students in this school do you believe are capable of masterying the basic academic skills at grade level? 90% or more . 70% to 89% 50% to 69% 30% to 49% . Less than 30% mwa—a What proportion of students in this school do you think the principal believes is capable of mastering the basic academic skills at grade level? 90% or more . 70% to 89% 50% to 69% 30% to 49% . Less than 30% U‘l-DOON-J How would you rate the academic ability of the students in this school compared to other schools in this area? Ability here is much higher Ability here is somewhat higher Ability here is about the same Ability here is somewhat lower Ability here is much lower . m-fi-WN—J How many teachers in this school feel that all their students regardless of their interests or ability should be thought to master the basic academic skills? Almost all of the teachers . Most of the teachers . Half of the teachers . Some of the teachers . . Almost none of the teachers WhWNd APPENDIX A-2 GROUP LEARNING GAME SCALE Please describe the strategy of group learning game as you understand it. (Responses) Teaching using competition and reinforcement . . . 1 Competition as a means of motivation ....... 2 Competition involving children of mixed ability . 3 Enrichment and reinforcement of a particular skills or objectives ............. 4 Opportunity for children to express themselves as individuals or group ........... 5 Provision of material or special privilege awards for motivation ............... 6 Other ...................... 7 Have you used group learning game in your classroom this year for reading instruction? Yes ........................ 1 No ...................... 2 If yes, how often have they been used? Have you used group learning game in your classroom this year for mathematics instruction? Yes ....................... 1 No .................. . 2 If yes, how often have they been used? 152 153 Why do you use group learning games? As an important part of mastery learning for student practice .............. As motivation for students ........... Because the rest of the staff does ....... To fill unscheduled time ............ I don't use group learning games ........ Other ................ Which of the following aspects of group learning games do you consistently use in reading instruction? (Circle all that apply) Contests at grade level (between classrooms) . . Contests between teams in classroom ...... To facilitate peer instruction ......... To facilitate motivation for practice within groups ................... To enhance social relations .......... To improve test taking skills ......... Which of the following aspects of group learning games do you consistently use in mathematics instruction? (Circle all that apply) Contests at grade level (between classrooms) . . Contests between teams in classrooms ...... To facilitate peer instruction ......... To facilitate motivation for practice within groups ................... To enhance social relations .......... To improve test taking skills . . . ...... If you use group learning games, how do you form the groups? Heterogeneously (by mixed ability) .2. . . . . . Homogeneously (by similar ability) . ...... Student self-selection of groups ....... Other ..................... APPENDIX A-3 REINFORCEMENT PRACTICE SCALE How would you characterize your use of reinforcement. I only positively reinforce correct answer . . . . I usually positively reinforce any answer so as to encourage students to respond . . . . I seldom reinforce any student ........ Other ................ What do you do when a student gives an incorrect answer? Rephrase question . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Simplify question ............ Probe student for correct answer ..... . . . . Tell student "good try," and continue ...... Other ...................... How important are the following concepts for your classroom isntruction? (Circle one number for each question.) Very Somewhat Not Important Important Important Important (ll (2) El (4) All correct answers should be encouraged by positive rein- forcement Students must have a clear understanding of what is being asked Teacher's feedback to students should clearly indicate whether an answer was correct or incorrect 154 155 Very Somewhat Not Important Important Important Important (1) (2) EL (4) Teachers should make a clear effort to see that all students give correct answers APPENDIX A-4 STUDY GROUPING SCALE How are students assigned to classroom in this school? Heterogeneously (by mixed ability) ...... . Homogeneously (by similar ability) ...... Other .................... If you use group learning games, how do you form the groups? Heterogeneously (by mixed ability ........ Homogeneously (by similar ability) ....... Student self-selection of groups ........ Other ...................... How do you group students for matehmatics in your class? (Responses) By mixed ability (homogeneously ...... . . . Whole group instruction . . . .......... No grouping (heterogeneously) .......... Individualized instruction ........... By grade level ................. Other ...................... How do you group students for the BSAP reading objectives in your class? How do you form reading groups in your class? 156 (JON—1 APPENDIX A-5 STAFF PLANNING SCALE Did the teachers at your grade level have a common time schedule for teaching the BSAP objectives for this year? If yes, who scheduled these objectives? Principal ................... l Grade-level staff ............... 2 Principal and Grade-Level staff ........ 3 Individual teachers .............. 4 Other ..................... 5 How often do you and your fellow grade-level teachers meet and share instructional strategies? . Very often ................... 1 Sometimes . . ................. 2 Rarely .................. 3 Never ..................... 4 If yes, who discussed these results? Principal . . . ................ 1 Team Leader .................. 2 R & E Staff .................. 3 Other ..................... 4 157 APPENDIX A-6 MASTERY STRATEGY SCALE How often do you introduce a new reading objective to entire class? (Responses) Weekly .................... 2-3 times a week . . . . ........... Several times a month . . ........... Each month .................. Depending on Mastery ............. Other . ................... How often do you introduce a new mathematics objectives to the entire class? (Responses) same as above responses What instructional strategies are used by you and others in this school to insure that gll_students master the basic skills objectives? (Responses) Work with small groups ............ Follow each step of mastery model ....... Frequent and through reinforcement ...... Group games ................ . Common scheduling of objectives . . ...... Charting individual progress ......... Reteach objectives .............. Other .................... How have you used the mastery learning strategy for reading instruction this year? 158 C‘UW-bWN—J membWN—J 5. How have you used the mastery learning stragety for mathematics instruction this year? 159 6. Please describe the mastery learning instructional stragegy as you understand it? (Responses) Steps 1-7 of the mastery learning model ..... l Instructi ng all children with the expectations that all will master the learning objectives. 2 Teach, test, and reteach ............ 3 Teaching and practice using group games ..... 4 Accuracy (If performance of a particular skill . 5 Other ...................... 6 7. When testing over an objective, what percentage of the students must master the object ive before you proceed with the next objective? All students . ................. l 90% or more . ................. 2 80% - 89% ................... 3 70% - 79% ......... . 4 60% - 69% ................... 5 50% - 59% .................. 6 Less than 50% .................. 7 Those who master on first try . ......... 8 Other ..................... 9 8. Which of the following components of the mastery learning strategy do you consistently use in your classroom instruction? (Circle all that apply) Define objectives . ............... 1 Schedule objectives ............... 2 Present objective to the entire class ...... 3 Student practice ................ 4 Formative test (Diagnostic) ........... 5 Reinstruction to mastery/enrichment ....... 6 Summative test (Final) ............. . 7 None of the above ................ 8 9. How would you characterize your testing objectives? They are the same for all students ....... 1 They are the same for most of the students . . 2 They are the same for some of the students . . 3 They are different for most of the students . . . 4 They are different for each student ....... 5 10. ll. 12. l3. )4. 15. 160 The modules contained in the School Climate Project manual are listed below. Please refer to the list in answering the next few guestions on how we may further improve the project. The School Learning Climate Expectations and Mastery Learning Group Learning Games Grouping and Differentiation Use of Evaluation Parental Involvement Academic Engaged Time The Role of the Principal Individual Reinforcement Principles Teacher Commitment and Student Learning OKOQDVONUT-bWN—J ——l Of these ten modules, which do you feel you used most consistently in your classroom to help maximize student achievement? (Please write the number(s) of the appropriate modules below) Which of these has had the most impact on climate and achieve- ment in your classroom? (Please write the numbers of the appropriate modules below) Of those consistently used, why_have these made an impact on your classroom? What could be done to improve these? Of these ten modules, which do you feel were used least consistently in your classroom? (Please write the numbers of the appropriate modules below) APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES l6l APPENDIX B TABLE B-l.--Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis with Teacher Climate, Group Game, and Reinforcement Practice as Independent Variables and Achievement as Dependent Variable Step Variable Upper Grade Lower Grade Total NO° EnterEd R2 R2 added R2 R2 added R24 R2 added 1. Teacher Climate .04 .04 .66 .66** .33 .33** 2. Reinforcement .05 .Ol .74 .08* .36 .03* 3. Group Game .28 .23 .78 .O4* .47 .ll* 1. Group Game .26 .26 .56 .56* .29 .29* 2. Reinforcement .26 .OO .74 .18* .34 .05* 3. Teacher Climate .28 .02 .78 .O4* .47 .l3* l. Reinforcement .03 .03 .41 .4l* .l6 .l6* 2. Teacher Climate .05 .02 .74 .33* .36 .20* 3. Group Game .28 .23 .78 .O4* .47 .ll* l. Teacher Climate .04 .04 .66 .66** .33 .33** 2. Group Game .27 .23 .69 .03* .46 .l3** 1. Group Game .26 .26 .56 .56* .29 .29* 2. Teacher Climate .27 .Ol .68 .l2* .46 .l8** l62 T63 TABLEB-2.--Means, Standard Deviations and Analysis of Variance for Teacher Expectation-Evaluations Among Six Sampled Schools School Code N Mean S.D. l. 15 24.87 4.26 2. l5 22.27 9.56 3. l2 l8.50 ll.62 4. l5 22.20 6.75 5. l5 27.33 4.25 6. l6 24.88 5.95 Sum of Mean . Source d.f. Squares Squares F-Ratio Pro. Between Groups 5 625.80 l25.36 2.3l .05* Within Groups 82 4445.15 54.2l Total 87 5071.95 164 TABLE B.3.--Means, Standard Deviations and Analysis of Variance for the Use of Group Learning Game Among Six Sampled Schools School Code N Mean 5.0. l 15 6.67 4.65 2. l5 5.93 4.83 3. l2 3.83 4.80 4. l5 8.80 3.27 5 l5 l0.47 6.46 6 l6 l2.00 4.95 Sum of Mean . Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio Pro. Between Groups 5 654.30 l30.86 5.40 .OOOZ*** Within Groups 82 l988.06 24.24 Total 87 2642.36 165 TABLE B-4.—-Means, Standard Deviations and Analysis of Variance for the Attitude Toward Reinforcement Practice Among Six Sampled Schools School Code N Mean S.D. 1. 15 16.80 4.24 2. 15 18.60 1.35 3. 12 14.00 6.20 4. 15 17.47 4.98 5. 15 17.80 2.00 6. 16 17.56 1.63 Sum of Mean . Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio Pro. Between Groups 5 162.00 32.60 2.33 .049* Within Groups 82 1146.07 13.98 Total 87 1309.07 166 pmmppmom am4 agmpmmz p:mv=pm--.m acumen ¢ m N — mvmgw - . . a o d 3 J m 4. S w. 0 II: .. 8 m. p a u m .. om e 1- 1.. D» I IL. z : Ow m. / 5 , /. u z , a om .w / J / 3 , w I fl... / a co m" I S /l «.0? @5281! 1.. \X.. 4.2 ..A. . .l muwumsmspwz --- m L 8 m x~ozmmm< APPENDIX C SELECTED GAMES FROM 77 GAMES FOR READING GROUPS SEYMOUR METZER, ED.D. SCHOOL OF EDUCATION CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Fearson Publishers, Inc. Belmont, California 167 Objective: Materials: Procedure: Objective: Materials: Procedure: Chop-off (PI) Word analysis, vocabulary development. Paper, pencils, text. Group the children in teams of five or six. Any number of letters from the given section of text may be chopped off the beginning or end of a word to make a new word (Example: "habits" become "bits" or "barren" becomes "bar). One point is awarded for each letter in the new words Beginnings (PI) Sentence construction, word usage. Paper, pencils, text. Group children in teams of five or six. Choose a particular sentence in the text. Each team attempts to form two new sentences using the first letter of each word in the designated sentence. (Example: "The dog ran away" might become "Tall ducks race awkwardly.") One point is scored for each letter used in the new sentence. 168 Objective: Materials: Procedure: Objective: Materials: Procedure: 169 Wriet-a-rhyme (PI) Rhyme recognition. Paper, pencils, text, chalkboard. Group the children in teams of five or six. Write several end sounds on the childboard (Example: ick, an, op). Each team, working with a particular part of the text, writes down as many words as possible that have the given sounds. Join-up (PI) Consonant blends, word recognition and construction. Paper, pencils, text, chalkboard. Group the children in teams of five or six. Using the text, each team writes as many initial consonant blends as it can find (Example: br, str, ch, sp). Each blend should be written on a separate line. Write several phonograms on the childboard (Example: ain, ite, aw, ack). Each team tries to combine as many consonant blends and phonograms as they can to make the most actual words. Objective: Materials: Procedure: Objective: Materials: Procedure: 170 X-words (I) Vocabulary development, spelling. Paper, pencils, text. Children form teams of five or six. Each team folds or draws a piece of paper making a 6" x 6" grid of thirty-six squares. The children write as many words as possible from a given section of text on this grid, one letter to a square. The words may read horizontally or vertically. A word may begin in the square immediately following the end of another word. A letter used in a horizontal word may also become part of a vertical word. Unlike cross— word puzzles, adjacent letters do not necessarily have to form words. The team that squeezes the most text words into its grid wins. Phase-o-grams (I) Phrase structure. Pencils, paper cut into 2" squares, text. Group the children in teams of five or six. Assign each team a different paragraph in the text. Each team breaks the paragraph into phrases, with one phrase per square of paper. (Example: "Bill ran into the house for his cat” would become Bill ran into the house for the cat Collect all the papers and mix them in a box. Each team draws a paper from the box. The first team to piece together a logical sentence (not necessarily the same as those in the text) is the winner. Objective: Materials: Procedure: Objective: Materials: Procedure: 171 Get Together (PI) Spelling, word analysis, alphabetization. Paper cut into 2" squares, pencils, text. Assign each student three words from the text to be written on separate squares of paper. Divide the group into teams of five or six. Collect all the papers and mix them in a box. Each team draws three words from the box. Within a specified time limit (one minute or so), each team must write one complete, correct sentence using all three words in order to score a point. Repeat steps (3), (4), and (5). The team with the most points wins. Poetry Party (PI) Rhyme recognition and recall. Paper, pencils, text. Divide the group into teams of three or four. Read one word from the text. Each team writes as many rhyming words as it can in a given time limit. The team with the most rhymes wins. Objective: Materials: Procedure: Objective: Materials: Procedure: T72 Letter Bank (PI) Vocabulary development, spelling. Paper, pencils, text. Children form teams of five or six. Each team folds or draws a piece of paper to make a 4" x 4" grid of sixteen squares. They write a letter in each square. Letters may be repeated. Using only the letters in the boxes, they try to write as many words as possible that appear in a given section of text. Letters may be used over again for different words. (The letters actually put into the grid, there- fore, should be keyed to this section in order to form a large number of words.) Sentence Go-go (I) Sentence construction, comprehension. Paper, pencils, text. Group the children in teams of five or six. Choose one page in the text. Each team takes one word from each sentence on that page and tries to form a new sentence. The words must be used in the same order in which the original sentences occur. The winning sentence is the one that has the most letters in it. BIBLIOGRAPHY 173 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Gerald R., 8 Cohen, Allan S. Children's physical and inter- personal characteristics that effect student-teacher inter- actions. Journal of Experimental Education, 1974, 43; 1-5. Anderson, G. J. Effects of classroom social climate on individual learning. American Educational Research Journal, 1970, 1, 135-152. Anderson, Lorin W. Time and school Learning. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1973. . An empirical investigation of individual differences in time to learn. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976, 68(2), 226-233. , and Block, J. H. Mastery learning. In D. Treffinger, J. Davis, and R. Ripple (Eds.), Handbook on educationalgpsy: chology: Instructional_practice and research. New York: Academic Press, 1976. , and Scott, C. C., and Hutlock, J., Jr. The effects of a mastery learning program on selected cognitive, affective and ecological variables in grades 1 through 6. Paper pre- sented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1976. Anderson, Reggy S. Teacher expectation and pupil self-conceptions. Doctoral dissertation, University of California. Disserta- tion Abstracts International. 1971, 32; 1619 A. Astin, A. W., and Holland, J. L. The environmental assessement technique: A way to measure college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1961, 52, 308-316. Bassett, R., and Kibler, R. Effects of training in use of behavioral objectives on student performance in a mastery learning course in speech communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, April 1974. 174 175 Blackburn, T., Semb, G., and Hopkins, R. The comparative effects of Blakey, self-grading versus protector grading on class efficacy and student performance. In J. M. Johnston (Ed.), Behavior research and technology in higher education. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1971. M. L. The relationship between teacher prophecy and teacher verbal behavior and their effect upon adult student achieve- ment. Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 61, 4615A. Block, J. H. Student learning and the setting of mastery performance standards. Educational Horizons, 1972, 66, 183-191. , and Anderson, L. W. Mastery learning in classroom instruc- tion. New York: MacMillan, 1975. , and Burns, R. B. Mastery learning. In Lee S. Shulman, (Ed.), Review of research in education. Vol. 4, Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock Publishers, 1976, 3-49. , and Tierney, H. An exploration of two correction procedures used in mastery learning approaches to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 962-967. Bloom, Benjamin S. Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1968, Blumer, Born, 0. HZ). Mastery learning and its implications for curriculum development. In E. W. Eisner (Ed.), Confronting Curriculum Reform. Boston: Little Brown, 1971. . New views of the learner: Implication for instructions and curriculum. Educational Leadership, April 1978, 563-576. . Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976. . The new direction in educational research: Alterable variables. Phi Delta Kappan, February 1980, 382-385. Herbert. Sociological implications of the thought of George Hervert Mead. American Journal of Sociology, 1966, 21, 535-544. Exam performance and study behavior as a function of study behavior as a function of study unit size. In J. M. Johnston (Ed.), Behavior research and technology in higher education. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1975. 176 Bowen, 0., and Faissler, W. Entry level testing and the pattern of Bowles, behavioral objectives in a Keller plan physics course. In J. M. Johnston (Ed.), Behavior research and technology in higher education. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1975. Samuel, and Gintis, H. Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books, 1976, 31-35. . 10 in the U.S. class structure. Science Policy, 1973, 6, 64-90. Brookover, W. B., Abbott, R., Hall, R., Hathaway, 0. V., Lezotte, L., Brophy, Miller, S. K., Passalacqua, J., 8 Tornatzky, L. G. School climate activities training: A program in 10 modules. East Lanisng, MI.: College of Urban Development, Michigan State University, 1978. , Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweizer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. School can make a difference. East Lanisng, Mi.: College of Urban Development, Michigan State University, 1977. . Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 1978, 16(2), 303. , and Erickson, Edsel L. Society, schools and learning, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1969, 3. . Sociolggy_of education. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, 1975. , and Lezotte, L. W. Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes in student achievement (Executive Summary). East Lansing, Mi.: College of Urban Development, Michigan State University, 1977. J. E., and Good, T. Teachers' Communications of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 365-374. . Teacher-student relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974. BSAP elementary achievement final report l978-1979, Pontiac School District, City of Pontiac, 1980. Burrows, C. K., & Okey, J. R. The effects of a mastery learning strategy on achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., March-April 1975. 177 Calhoun, J. F. Elemental analysis of the Keller method of instruc- tion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, August 1973. Caponigri, R. S. Capsulized mastery learning: An experimental and a correlational study of a mastery learning stragey. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Loyola University, 1972. Carroll, J. B. A model of school learning. Teachers college Record, 1963, 64, 723-733. School learning over the long haul. In J. D. Krumboltz (Ed.), Learning and the educational process. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965. . Problems of measurement related to the concept of learning for mastery. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971, 29-46. Rationality and irrationality in educational research. Symposium at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., 1975. Carter, Ronald M. Locus of control and teacher expectancy as related to achievement of young school children. Doctoral disserta- tion, Indiana University, Dissertation Abstracts International, 1969, 66:467A. Chaikin, Alan L., Sigler, E., and Derlega, V. Nonverbal mediators of teacher expectancy effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 66, 144-149. Charon, Joel M. §ymbolic interactionism: An introduction, an integpretation, an integration. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,lTnc., 1979. Chung, Bom M. Educational climate. Seoul, Korea: Korean Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, 2(9), 1976. Claiborn, W. L. Expectancy effects in the classroom: A failure to replicate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 66, 377-383. Coldeway, D. 0., Santowski, M., O'Brien, R., and Lagowski, V. A comparison of small group contingency management with the personaized system of instruction and the lecture system. Paper presented at 2nd National Conference on Research and Technology in College and University Teaching, Georgia, November 1974. 178 Collings, K. A strategy for mastery learning in modern mathematics. Unpublished study, Purdue University, 1970. Conran, P. C., and Beauchamp, G. A. Relationships among leadership, climate, teacher, and student variables in curriculum engin- eering. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri- can Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 1976. Cooley, Charles H. Human nature and the social order. New York: Chocken Books, 1970. Cronback, L. J. Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 1975, 66, 116-127. Dalton, William B. Exploring the expectancy effects phenomenon: A study of the perpetuation of teachers' expectations of pupils. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers. 1972. Davis, M. L. Mastery test proficiency requirement affects mastery test perforamnce. In J. M. Johnston (Ed.), Behavior research and technology in higher education. Springfield, 111.: CharTes C. Thomas, 1975. Elashoff, J. D., and Snow, R. E. Pygmalion reconsidered. Worthing- ton, Ohio: Charles Jones, 1977. Fiedler, W. R., Cohen, R. D., and Feeney, S. An attempt to repli- cate the teacher expectancy effect. Psychological Reports, 1971, 66, 1223-1228. Finlayson, D. S. Measuring "school climate." Trends in Education, 1973, 66, 19—27. Finn, Jeremy D. Expectations and the educational environment. Review of Educational Research, 1972, 46, 387-410. Flanagan, J. C. Tests of general ability: Technical report. Chicago: Science Research Association, 1960. Fleming, E. S., and Anttonen, R. G. Teacher expectancy or "My fair lady.‘I American Educational Research Journal, 6, 241-252. Fox, R. S., Lippett, R. 0., and Schmuck, R. A. Pupil-teacher adjust- ment and mutual adaptation in creating classroom learning environment (Final Report). U. S. Department of Health, Education, Cooperative Research Porject No. 1167, Inter- center Program of Research on Children, Youth, and Family Life, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, January 1964. 179 Garner, J., and Bing, M. The elusiveness of pygmalion and differ- ences in teacher-pupil contacts. Interchange, 1973, 4, 34-42. " Given, Barbara K. Teacher expectancy and pupil performance: Their relationship to verbal and non-verbal communications by teachers of learning disabled children. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University, 1973. Goldsmith, J., and Fry, E. The effect of a high expectancy predic- tion on reading achievement and IQ of students in grade 10. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, February 1971. Good, Thomas L., Biddle, Bruce J., and Brophy, Jere E. Teachers make a difference. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975. , and Brophy J. Looking in classroom. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. , and Dembo, M. Teacher expectations: Self-report data. School Review, 1973, 61, 247-253. Gosciewski, F. W. The effect of expectancy reinforcement on arith- matic achievement, self-concept and peer-group status of elementary children. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Kent State University, 1969. Hall, Gene E. and Loucks, Susan F. A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research Journal, 1977, 16(3), 263- 276. Halpin, A. W., and Crofts, D. The organizational climate of schools. U. S. Office of Educational Research Report. Salt Lake City: Utah University, 1962. Harrison, M., and Harrison, F. Mastery learning and quality of instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., March—April 1975. Hathaway, Douglas V. Changing school climate and student achievement. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1980. Herritt, R. E., and Gross, N. (Eds.), The dynamics of planned educa- tional change: Case studies and analyses. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1979. at? Ll— 180 Isaac, S., and Michael, W. B. Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego, Ca1.: EDITS, 1977. Jenson, Arthur R. Educability and group differences. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. Jeter, J. T. Teacher expectancies and teacher classroom behavior. Educational Leadership, 1973, 66, 677-681. Johnston, J., 8 O'Neill, G. The analysis of performance criteria defining college grades as a determinate of college student academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 261-268. , and Pennypacker, H. S. A behavioral approach to college teaching. American Psychologist, 1971, 66, 291-244. Jone, E. L., Gordon, H. A., and Shechtman, G. A strategy for aca- , demic success in a community college. Unpublished manuscript, Olive-Harvey College, Chicago, 1975. Katz, 0., and Kahn, R. L. .The.social psychology-of organizations, second edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1978. Kerman, S. Teacher expectations and student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 1979, 66(10), 716-718. Kester, Scott W. The communication of teacher expectations and their effects on the achievement and attitudes of secondary school pupils. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1968. , and Letchworth, G. Communication of teacher expectation and their effects on achievement and attitudes of secondary school students. Journal of Educational Research, 1972, 66, 51-55. Kim, Choong Hoe and Kim, Byong Sung. A pilot study on the Bloom strategy for mastery learnigg, Seoul, Korea: Korean Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, Research Bulletin, No. 6, 1969. Kim, Hogwon. The mastery learning in the Korean middle schools. UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia, September 1971, 6(1), Sec. 1, 55-60. Kim, Hogwon, et a1. Mastery learning in the middle school: Final report on mastery learning project. Seoul, Korea: Korean Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, Research Bulletin 16,6, 1970. 181 Kranz, P. L., Weber, W. A., and Fishell, K. N. The relationship between teacher perception of pupils and teacher beahvior toward those pupils. Paper presented at the annual meeting pf the American Educational Research Association, Minneapolis, 970. Krupczak, W. P. Relationship among student self-concept of academic ability, teacher perception of student academic ability and student achievement. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Miami, 1971. Lee, Young D., et a1. Interaction improvement studies on the mastery learning project, Final report on mastery learning. Educa- tional Resarch Center, Seoul National University, April- November 1971. Levin, T. The effect of contant-prerequisite and process—oriented experiences on application ability in the learning of probability. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1975. Lezotte, L. W., Hathaway, 0. V., Miller, S. K., Passalacqua, J., and Brookover, W. B. School learning climate and student achieve- ment: A social systems approach to increased student learning. Washington, D.C.: National Teacher Corps, Dept. of Education (in press), 1980. Madaus, G. F., Kellaghan, T., Rakow, E. A., and King, D. J. The sensitivity of measures of school effectiveness. Harvard Educational Review, 1979, 46(2), 207-230. Malott, R. (Ed.). Resarch and development in higher education: A technical report of some behavioral research at Western Michigan University. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, 1971. McDill, Edward L., and Rigsby, Leo C. Structure and process in secondary schools: The academic impact of educationali climates. Baltimore: JBhns Hopkins University Press, 1973. , Meyers, E., and Rigsby, L. Institutional effects on the academic behavior of high school students. Sociology of Education, 1969, 46, 181—199. McNeil, J. D. Forces influencing curriculum. Review of Educational Research, 1969, 66, 293-318. McQueen, William M., Jr. The effect of divergent teacher expectation on the performance on a vocabulary learning task. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1969. 182 Mead, George H. Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Meichenbaum, D. H., Bowers, K. S., and Ross, R. B. A behavioral analysis of teacher expectancy effect. Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 1969, 16, 306-316. Merton, Robert K. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1957. Okey, J. R. Altering teacher and pupil behavior with mastery teach- ing. School Science and Mathematics, 1974, 14, 530-535. The consequences of training teachers to use mastery learning. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Cal., 1976. . Development of mastery teaching materials. Final Evalua- tion Report, USOE G-74-2990, Indiana University, 1975. , and Ciesla, J. Mastery teaching. National Center for the Development of Training Materials in Teacher Education. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University, 1975. O'Neil, G., Johnston, J., Walters, W., and Rashed, J. The effects of quality of assigned materials on college student academic performance and student behavior. In J. M. Johnston (Ed.), Behavior research and technology in higher education. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1975. O'Reilly, R. Classroom climate and achievement in secondary school mathematics calsses. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 1975, 61, 241-248. Pace, C. R. The influence of academic and student sub-cultures in college and university environments. University of California, Los Angeles: U. S. Office of Education and Social Science Research Council Cooperative Research Project, 1964. Parsons, Dennis E. A study of student teachers'expectations, and their verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, 1973. Parsons, T. The school class as a social system: Some of its func- tions in American society. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 297-318. Pellegrine, R. J., and Hicks, R. A. Prophecy effects and tutorial instruction for the disadvantage child. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 413—419. 183 Peng, Samuel S. Expectations, instructional behavior and pupil achievement. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1974. Persell, Caroline H. Education and inequality: A theoretical and empirical synthesis. New York: The Free Press, 1977. Project Longstep. Impact of educational innovation on student per- formance. Palo Alto, Ca1.: American Institute for Research, 1976. Rist, Ray C. Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard. Educational Review, 46, 411-451. Robin, A. L., and Graham, H. 0. Academic response and attitudes endengered by teacher versus student pacing in a personalized instruction course. In R. S. Ruskin and S. F. Bono (Eds.), Personalized instruction in higher education. Washington, D.C.: Center for Personalized Instruction, 1974. Robinson, Leo A. Teacher cognitive complexity and cognitive demands made upon perceived high and low achieving students. Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1972. Rosenthal, Robert. The pygmalion effect: What you expect is what you get. Psychology Today Library Cassette, 12, New York: Ziff-Davis, 1974. , and Jacobson, L. Eygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. Rothbart, M., Dalfen, S., and Barbert, R. Effects of teacher expec- tancy on student-teacher interaction. Journal of Educational Esychology, 1971, 66, 49-59. Rubovits, P., and Maehi, M. Pygmalion analyzed: Toward an explana- tion of the Rosenthal-Jacobson findings. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 1971, 16, 197-203. . ngmalion black and white. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 66, 210-218. Rutter, Michael, Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., and Ouston, J. Fifteen- thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979. Schmuck, R. A., and Schmuck, P. A. Group processes in theyglassroom. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, 1975. 184 Schneider, J. M. An investigation and social-psychological variables comprising school normative academic climate in high and low achieving white-urban, black-urban, and rural elementary schools with school mean socio-economic status controlled. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Seaver, William B., Jr. Effects of naturally induced teacher expec— tancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 333-342. Semb, G. The effects of mastery criteria and assignment length on college student test performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Ana1ysis, 1974, 1, 51-69. An analysis of the effects of hour exams and student- answered study questions on test performance. In J. M. Johnston (Ed.), Behavior research and technology in higflgr education. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C.TThomas, 1975. Sheppard, W. C., and MacDermot, H. G. Design and evaluation of a programmed course in introductory psychology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 6, 5-11. Shibutani, T. Reference groups and social control. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962, 128-144. Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the classroom. New York: Random House, 1970. Slavin, R. E. A student team approach to teaching adolescents with special emotional and behavioral needs. Psychology in the Schools, 1977, 14(1), 77-84. , and Devries, D. L. Learning teams: Changing the reward and task structures of the classroom. In H. Walberg (Ed.), Educational environment and effects: Evaluation and poljpy. Berkeley, Ca1.: McCutchanTPublishing Corporation, 1978. Snow, Richard E. Unfinished pygmalion. Contemporary Psychology, 1969, 14, 197-199. Sorotzkin, F., Fleming, E., and Anttonen, R. Teacher knowledge of standardized test information and its effect on pupil IQ and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 46, 79-85. Spielberg, Deanna B. Labeling, teacher expectations, pupil intelli- gence level, and conditions of learning. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1972. 185 Stern, G. G. Studies of college environment. Syracuse, New York: U. S. Office of Education and Social Science Research Council Cooperative Research Project, 1964. Thorndike, Robert L., Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. "Pygmalion in the classroom." (Book review), American Educational Research Journal, 1968, 6, 768-711. Torshen, Kay P. The mastery approach to competency-based education. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1977. Walberg, Herbert J. Psychology of learning environment: Behavioral, structural, or perceptual? In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education. Vol. 4, Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Pea- cock Publishers, 1976. 142-178. , and Anderson, G. Classroom climate and individual learning, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.: Research Report 0f Harvard Project Physics in Cooperation with Carnegie Corpora- tion of New York, National Science Foundation, Sloan Founda- tion, and U. S. Office of Education, 1967. Ware, A. A comparison of two mastery learning strategies for teaching geographic concepts. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univers- ity of Washington, 1976. Williams, R. C. A political perspective on staff development. Teach- ers College Record, 6(1), 95-106. Willis, Bill J. The influence of teacher expectation on teachers' classroom interaction with selected children. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College, 1970. Whitehurst, C., and Whitehurst, G. Forced excellence versus "free choice" of grades in undergraduate instruction. In J. M.. Jounston (Ed.) Behavior research and technology in higher education. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas,TT975. Yee, Albert H. Source and direction of causal influence in teacher- pupil relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1968, 66, 275-282. { ll111111llllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllll/ll