.I- i-viR.iimL - L. '2 FARC. .-G- ili. .’ .'JiY. v.2 /U.. ^ ie.Xj(jG *• ‘..Hl'l’IiCu SKIIJ j S TivAl.-Il.Ci c : . c l i -v.z H» i'. 2*t - i. _■-- O ^ i Hr c’ .tt 1.0 o O' .t t o d to o‘.r S c A o o l o: U C o Mo, o o: A; r i c u l u r e .• ii-' A".- 2 i o^ i'ul:'ill*r'.c:; t o. Li.p re'Miiror.- : o: nie..i; 3 t:-1- ■it r.ce i 22 '.'or ti.c c.e ret' o: ■GCx'CR O F P H I L G S C I M Y L i e tv< 2’ tno: i' OOI .OiP; ", .rortoln I li 'OU >-ut, e "J t :- ~ o :r •: '."iicp ti u- •:.«' :~.n- : u r ° ' i t m: ACKNOWLEDGMENT S . I woxild like to thank those who helped me in the preparation of this thesis and the experimental work Which preceded it. The members of my graduate committee have encouraged me to develop my own interests within the framework of the inter-departmental degree: Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Charles P. Loomis (Chairman) Duane Gibson A. T. Cordray Walter R. Fee Dr. Charles R. Hoffer Dr. Harry H. Kimber Prof. Kenneth Tiedke Dr. John Useem Two members of the committee contributed most. Dr. A. T. Cordray read the manuscript at several stages and commented freely on the writing and content. Dr. Duane Gibson, under whose direction most of the work was done, proved so conscientious a director and editor that the whole Job was made much easier. The association was most friendly. Prof. Joe Mills was quick to understand the frame of reference and the purpose of the experiment. His cooperation made half of the experiment possible and the care with which he followed the general teaching method made this contribution meaningful. Prof. Theodore Kennedy and Prof. Meredith Taylor read and evaluated all papers on the pre- and post—written teste* They adapted themselves easily to the new Rating Scale and frame of reference. Other members of the Department of Written and Spoken English commented on the Scale and Guide, and this help was important in revising them for final use. A hundred others, by word of mouth or by letter, suggested sources of material, provided the critical evaluations for specific parts of the ex­ periment, and generally facilitated the final results. Not one person to whom I went for help gave me anything but the fullest and most friendly cooperation and encouragement. n, - ... 1AV.• lap r ... . ‘-- •/ .J. r‘ .'.r I. KU stay lit :i[. .1' LI TLA A jvVILA.S; FK. .I.IMI .L.RY I A T AYI'GL: RGI S ..... Cone .A..'. iy i.v-.r, ''rr. Finn! L- ~PO t I.. e k t er i p p n ; r» r« IV. liuL I- GF R L A M ; OR; A-AA MI- IF,AS ITA-AARY! 1. An IS i F J L Y .................................... V. L— . VI TRAC.nl .i x ■ .V-; . ;IR. • nr V..O-: u: ij> t- K .in.. ■V uni :e Tr' in::. tr- r .. v J i_ . VTII. - o:- R.r i. p JM *n o: sc- le. . . . ■r: r o:.r. VA_I~Ixi A... FFRSA :t: IGi I S ;, _7*i jx . l .>■, . •rL'Ar. S i :‘i c ' .-:-i t A- G-rr s- All :-:-.-.:l i :',r> ...... • • • ............... ('TTM **1< —•—>— O U ITUM .3*1 . .«»d * c: • : . -jv rT: .t;_ • 1V ■ Irp- ■ ■ • • • • 1.^ >A ...... 131 ;.:. . : c,\ «.1 ; s ............ 1 ■. ............ u 6 ...... 1 ?- x Tn-.t: tive u l " i..e :'or So ~ l o A I C. nSi 11 9 . tor- r 'Jr.iCrr 1 A. T_ ' . A ............... ,>1' S o c.i o 1 o ,- v 1-v 1 •* *U a ■ :v. ... ; •9 5 1 .. . ; " . i. . . L■ . S do il.\ I ")f*t- o’".* * .. • ....... 1 A- i 1 CHAPTER OHS STATEMENT OF PROBLEM I. Need for study: There ie general agreement that college students communicate badly, but little is done to help them beyond the usual required course in Fresh­ man English or Communication Skills* Some colleges do require additional work in communication skills, usually in speech, and some departments may require specialised skills courses such as Business Speech, Letter Writ­ ing, Report Writing, Journalism, or Story Telling, In addition some etud1 ants take advanced courses in skills, but these are usually those whose professional bent or whose aptitude suggests such concentration. The poor student is often "referred" to a clinic for remedial work although many such referral systems are largely ineffective: most average and superior p students never are trained to their capabilities in writing or speaking. With few exceptions instruction in skills has been left to specific courses in English, speech or journalism, although, as we will see later, communication skills cannot be isolated; their teaching is not a discreet discipline. It is explicit in the definition of communication skills * Skills, as used in this thesis, refers to communication Bkills as defined in Chapter U. ^ The generalizations in this section are based on the studies re­ ported in Chapters 2 and U, especially on the following: Paul I. Pendleton, The Interdepartmental Teaching of English in College: Its extent, its method and its possibilities, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University, 19^1. Robert J, Geist, an untitled study of the problem of improving the writing of upperclassmen in 3^ colleges, All-College Educational Research Committee, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Mich., 1'33?. 2 di8cubsed in Chapter U thAt an inter-disciplinary approach is the most fruitful and this is the central assumption of this thesis. To properly teach skills it is necessary to apply the findings of such disciplines as linguistics, cultural anthropology, social—psychology, education and child development. Few teachers of * content" courses spend much time with the problems 3 of communication skills, although most would not deny the importance of such skills in the understanding and application of content material. There are many reasons why they do not teach skills, including the followingi A. Class size and student load keep teachers "too busy,* The criti­ cism of papers and oral reports takes more time than they feel they can spend; often the grading of papers is turned over to graduate students who in turn are too busy with their own problems, B. Some teachers feel that the teaching of communication skills is the function of specific courses and is not their concern. C. Those who agree that the teaching of skills is the concern of all teachers may feel that the time required would cut into the time available for teaching subject matter. D. Many of these that they do not have feel that they are not qualified to teach skills, or efficient methods by which to integrate this training with the regular course work. 2, Many have become apathetic because of the feeling that they are working by themselves, without an overall program to tie to. ^ Cf. Paulus Lange, "What Price English?" Journal of Higher Education 9: UpU-g (TTov. 193?). Perhaps the growing concern with the writing of students at one insti­ tution will point up the problem. Michigan State College* in the year 1951“ 52, has taken at least three unrelated actions in this area: First, the Dean of the Basic College has announced that in the present reorganization of the core courses "all teachers will teach communication skills," and that an all-college committee will he charged with the respon­ sibility of recommending how this can be done. Second, the faculty has approved a recommendation of the All-College Educational Research Committee that all students who fall below a certain level of writing proficiency, not yet defined, will be referred to the Writ­ ing Improvement Service for additional work of a remedial nature until they reach this level. Third, before this plan was adopted the Division of Conservation had formed a joint committee with the Department of Written and Spoken English to set up a program to improve the writing of students in that division. A teacher of communication skills has worked within the division, suggesting standards, reading papers, teaching a remedial section and consulting with students with writing problems. The difficulties faced by any program to improve the communication skills while teaching "content" are increased because little is known about the methods which might prove successful and efficient. Almost no research has been done at the college level to indicate how the teaching of content can be integrated with the teaching of skills. Even experimental data of such integration in the secondary schools is lacking, althou^i there are many programs which have attempted the task. It is difficult, as will be Indicated in Chapter ?, to evaluate the success of such programs. !15i0 problem la to see if writing skills (or speaking, listening and reading) can be taught within the framework of courses not specifically designed to teach these skills. It must be demonstrated that such skills can be tau^it, thAt this teaching does not detract from the teaching of subject matter, and that teachers trained In specialized areas can be efficiently trained to teach skills. II. Preliminary hypothesis; A general hypothesis suggests itself at thiB point in the considei*ation of the problem; Students in content courses can be taught certain writing skills within the framework of the course. The formation of a spe­ cific hypothesis must follow an examination of the literature, extensive reconnaissance and a series of trial experiments. 5 CHAPTER TWO SURVEY OP LITERATURE AND TYPES OF INTEGRATION I. Survey of Literature: It has become fashionable for college teachers to talk about the poor writing of students and the necessity for integration of writing skills with the whole curriculum. The Shibboleth is "Every teacher a teacher of •* 5 English" and, as Pendleton and Oeist have shown, most colleges have learned to pronounce it whether or not they examine its implications. Pendleton has surveyed the literature on integration to 19^1 and con­ cludes that it is almost unanimous in stressing the need. His first two chapters on the problem of integration and the related philosophies are sufficiently detailed to eliminate the need for a detailed discussion here; little has been added in the past decade which is not a repetition of earlier thinking. Efforts at what has been called integration have been numerous at all levels of the educational process, but most of these efforts, ae Pendleton points out (in his third and later chapters) and as confirmed by Geist (es­ pecially in the letters from which his data are drawn), have been action programs and not intended to be rigorous experiments to test effectiveness. As research designs they do little more than suggest subjective hypotheses upon which more careful studies can be based. ^ Op « Cit. 5 Op» cit. 6 As early as I91U Brubacker and others were stressing the necessity for 7 integration* Church discusses an experiment in which all teachers of con­ tent courses marked papers for writing effectiveness and referred poor stuS dents for remedial work. Vose presents a program of integration in the sec9 ondary schools. Moore describes a program in which themes written for a composition course were "based on subject matter from other courses; all good papers were sent to the teacher of the content course and given cred10 it for content. Sheperd discusses a system of deferral of high school English grades until the Junior year when the student was required to dem11 12 onstrate his ability in the communication skills. Hobbett and Smith 13 show the relation of language skills to their use in content areas. Boek ----- A. R. Brubacker, "Co—operation of Departments to Secure Good Speech and Writing," English Journal 3* 331"“^ (June I91U). 7 H.7. Church, "An Experiment in Co-operation in English," School Re­ view 25s 67O-S (Dec. 1915)» g Ruth M. Vose, Co-operative Teaching of English in the Secondary Schools, unpublished thesis, University of Illinois, 1925» 9 Jesaio E. Moore, Practical Suggestions for Correlation, unpublished study on file with R.L. Lyman, University of Chicago, Chicago, 19*5 pology. She papers read were, in the writer*a judgment, below the level expected of Freshmen in the required communication skills course; the most nearly comparable papers are the "investigative" papers which fora the bulk of the work in the second quarter of the course in Written and Spoken English. Set against Freshman standards more than half of the pa­ pers read, written by Juniors, Seniors, and Graduate Students, fell be­ low the C level in such matters as mechanics, clarity, documentation, ex­ ample, organization, or limitation. It was the writer*b opinion that less than 25 P®*“ cent were satisfactory at a Junior level. U6 Like all judgments about writing the above are subjective. However, in three annual studies made by the Department of Written and Spoken Eng­ lish the writer has been about the average among the Uo to 50 staff mem­ bers in the rating of themes. Moreover, the evaluations were supported by **7 Dr. Brown. Ur J Unless otherwise stated all references which follow are to Michi­ gan State College. ^ Cf. Robert Pooley, "Contributions of Research to the Teaching of English," English Journal 37* 170-5 (April I9US). He concludes that ex­ perienced teacher judgment is a more valid measure of composition than any other present method. **7 The All—College Educational Research Committee at Michigan State College estimates that only 5 Per cent of students write so badly that they need special attention. This is a bare minimum based primarily on mechanics and does not consider the concept of communication on which the present study is based. lg The conclusion drawn from these judgments was that many students write less effectively or less carefully as upperclassmen than they did in Ug the required skills course. It seemed important at this point to make a pre-experimental observation of just what writing weaknesses actually occur in courses in Sociology; this was done through the listing of critical in­ cidence, described in Chapter 7» Part I. The second pre-experimental problem was to investigate the methods by which such deterioration in writing could be checked and the growth in communication skills continued beyond the Freshman year. To solve these problems and to prepare a final hypothesis three trial experiments were set up, I. First Trial Experiment: During the Winter quarter of 19^9— 50 a section of Introduction to U9 Sociology, Soc. 201, was selected for the first trial. The writer had no previous experience with the teaching of Sociology although he had taught courses in journalism, communication skills, literature and labor for seven yearB. The trial experiment was started without any pre-conceived plans for the organization of the course beyond the following: students would writs an exercise a week and all papers would be marked for writing as well as content; sociological material dealing with language and communication -----5g— Cf. Similar conclusions in Hobert Monroe, "The Verbal Factor," The graduate SchoolRecord. Ohio State University 5: no. 1: U-9 (Oct.1951)liq Soc, 201 is a Sophomore level course with prerequisite Basic So­ cial Science or Basic EffectiveLiving. 19 would be emphasized; there would be no formal instruction In writing skills; the writing standards would be those set by the writer of this thesis for the " Investigative" paper of the basic communication skills course* The writing exercises were varied, including definition with a stress on the functional approach and the use of examples, outlining ^ precis, factual reporting, application of theoretical generalizations to specific social situations, critical evaluation of a point of view, per50 auaslve argument, and formation of hypotheses* Besides these Bhort papers, written as examinations or as homework, students were given an option of writing a book-report or giving an oral report on an experimental study in the literature* One paper was rewritten outside of class after small-group discussions in class on content, writing effectiveness, and adaptation to the reader* Before each exercise a minute or two was taken to point out some of the problems presented by the topic or question; among these were state­ ment and limitation of subject, statement of frame of reference or bias, the limitations of "authority* as evidence, exemplification, value judg­ ments, the relative nature of concepts and of classifications. For example, an early exercise on the concept "culture" was preceded by a discussion of the nature of concepts, the usefulness of operational definitions, the ne­ cessity for identification of definitions as to source or frame of refer­ ence, and the Importance of example. _____ A more detailed explanation of these and other concepts will fol­ low in Chapters U and 6. 20 In another exercise students outlined a chapter in the text after a five-minute discussion of the subordination of ideas and the accepted forms for outlining. This assignment called for two sets of skills, reading and writing, and pointed up the necessity for clear, accurate reporting without value judgments. Language was presented as a form of cultural behavior and applica­ tions of language behavior were made whenever the subject matter permitted. For example, in the third lesson the concept "society" as treated in the test suggested the introduction of material on language as an element in the preservation of culture, a point not much stressed in the text. Other illustrations of language behavior were natural and necessary in such die— cuesions as those of status, the development of the "self," and of public opinion. None of this discussion was in terms of language as an area separate from the subject matter under discussion. Rather, language was introduced when it fitted a purpose. Beyond this no instruction in writing or lan­ guage was given, although general and specific comments were made on papers. Student evaluations at the end of the term indicated that they did not think they were being taught "English." The essential weaknesses in this trial experiment were as follows! First, the students had no strong motivation for improving their writing, since their experience in other courses had left them indifferent to the values of clear communication! Second, they were given no definite models of good writing to follow and were not made sufficiently aware of differ­ ent levels of usage for different readers and purposes; Third, the stand­ ards of acceptable writing were not made explicit by the teacher; Fourth, 21 there was no instructional, guide available for reference by students; Fifth, there was no overall organization of instruction in skills, and students were often confused about the relation of one comment or suggestion to another or about the relation of a specific comment in mechanics to the greater problem of writing effectivenesa. (For example, is there a relationship between a comment on an antecedent mistake and a general com­ ment on specificity?); Sixth, discussion about language as behavior was not always clearly separated from discussion of language skills. Two additional factors limited the effectiveness of the trial experi­ ment: First, the writer's lack of experience in the integration of content and skills; and second, the inadequacy of the text as a model of good com51 munication. The text. Human Society by Kindsley Davie, regardless of other qualities, is wordy, vague, lacking in specific example, full of value judgments, and includes little discussion of the importance of language. Obviously this is a value Judgment, but it is a judgment based on the def­ inition of communication and the writer's frame of reference made in Chap­ ter U; it is important since it led to changes in the teaching method of later trial experiments and in the final course plan. In spite of these obvious weaknesses in the first trial it reinforced the subjective conclusion that it is possible to improve the writing of students within the framework of the course. II. Second Trial Experiment? During the Winter quarter of 195"w 51 a section of Introduction to Sociology was selected for the second trial, to attempt to meet some of ** Kingsley Davis, Human Society, Macr.illan, New York, 19^?. 22 the weaknesses of the first study. The text had been changed to Wilson 5? and Kolb's Sociological Analysis, a hook much more suitable from the writer's point of view than Human Society in the use of examples, in var­ iety of good writing models, in variety and in treatment of language be­ havior. It is essentially a book of readings, with the weakness that the overall organization of the course is harder to prepare than with the use of an integrated text* However, the Department of Sociology and Anthro­ pology had agreed upon the broad outlines of the course with a general 53 outline based on the text. In this trial, the emphasis on clear communication was made explicit from the first, students being informed that papers which fell below a certain level of effectiveness were to be rewritten before the content grade would be entered. The organization of the course was essentially the same as in the first trial, lecture-discussion method of presentation of subject matter, supplemented by student reports, weekly written exer­ cises, and stress on linguistic material where appxoprlate to the subject under discussion* In preparation for each writing exercise the expected problems were pointed out as before. A more complete discussion of this aspect of the method will be found in Chapter 6 ; it is sufficient here to point out that the discussion of Bkills was never taken out of context, but always preceded or followed a particular problem situation. Logen Wilson and William Kolb, Sociological Analysis, Harcourt— Brace, New York, 19^9* The general outline is reflected in the Tentative Outline for Sociology 201, Appendix A. 23 A greater use of models of good writing was possible this trial and these were specifically discussed in terms of the purpose and audience for which they were written. The range of models was supplemented by readings in Maclver and Page, Society, and in other ways; this range is largely aca­ demic, it is true, consisting of journal articles, chapters from textbooks, monographs and other learned works. The selection is proper for reading, since students must learn to read such material, but it is too limited in terms of models for writing, since most students will write more nonacademic than academic reports. The time allotted to instruction in skills was slight, being less than two hours for the term. Two equated forms of an objective test in Sociology were given at the beginning and end of the term, half of the class taking each form at the start and then reversing the forms at the end. This test and the method by which it was prepared is discussed in Chapter 7« Many of the problems raised in the first trial were met, in some de­ gree: the integration of Sociology and skills; motivation of students to improve their writing; emphasis on good models of communication for differ­ ent purposes. Left somewhat unorganized were the specific areas of commun­ ication skills and their relation to each other. The largest unsolved prob­ lem was the provision of a usable set of criteria for the measurement and evaluation of written material. Comments on papers, because of the time re­ quired to make them, often did not cover all the major areas of writing 5^ \ R.M. Maclver and C.M. Page, Society, Rinehart, New York, 19*+9. 4 difficulties nor relate these to the total communication situation; stu­ dents were not made aware of the relation of total writing: effectiveness to its specific parts such as organization, mechanics, example, or sen­ tence structure. III. Third Trial Experiment: During the same term a section of Introduction to Social Psychology, Soc. 202, was selected for a third trial. The text was Young*s Social Psv55 chology. In this course the integration of language and other sociological material was particularly easy in many areas; for example, in Chapter 8 of the text, on Socio— Cultural Reality, the process of conceptualization is treated, and in later chapters stereotypy, ideologies, prejudice, mass be­ havior, public opinion and propaganda, and the mass media lend themselves to a consideration of language. In some cases this consideration of lan­ guage behavior also provides lessons in language skills, as does, for ex­ ample, conceptualization. The essential methods in this trial experiment were, however, the same as the last and the conclusions drawn merely reinforced those of the second trial. IV. Conclusions from the Three Trial Experiments? On the basis of these three trials the original, rather general h y ­ pothesis that writing can be taught within the framework of a specific course in Sociology was subjectively reinforced and sharpened. ^ Certain Kimball Young, Social Psychology, F.S. Crofts, Ne^ York, 19^7* 25 methods seemed usable and to "be effective In producing Improvement In certain areas of writing skills and in general communication. Certain conditions for the final experiment were suggested: 1. Motivation must he worked for, not assumed or left to chance. Part of this motivation, it was felt, could he achieved negatively by demanding a certain level of writing as a condition for any grade on con­ tent. Positive motivation, it was assumed, could he increased hy making the writing relate to actual student values, improvement of grades, pro­ fessional goals, perception of status, and to the total problem of learn­ ing. 2. Models of good (and had) writing for particular purposes must he provided and explicitly recognized. Important among these are informal, non-academic reports. Models to encourage good writing are not always those necessary to develop reading skills. 3. The skills in whichimprovement is soughtmust he made explicit and their relation to totalwriting effectivenessmust he made clear. It is not sufficient, at leastin an isolated course, to point out to each student the weaknesses in his writing, since these may seem isolated from the total communication situation and because, in the course of one term in one class, he may not get instruction in certain areas. U. The integration of sociology and "language" must he divided into two parts, one of which concerns itself with knowledge about language as behavior and the other with skill in the use of language. A. The skills of writing are the proper experimental variable for tne purpose of this study. 26 B. Discussion of language as cultural behavior as it relates to other forms of behavior is a part of the field of sociology and should not be made a part of the experimental variables. The bulk of experimental data indicates that there is little relation between knowledge about linguistic behavior and the ability to use Language, except in a very general way. In addition, there is little evidence thn4- '^.'i^ledge about grammar, syntax, 56 and rules has any relation to ability to communicate. 5. Any method of teaching skills must be efficient, not taking too much class time or demanding too much grading time. A. The expected areas of writing weakness must be discovered, in terms of a specific course or courses, and the number of these areas kept small. Concentration must be in these areas. B. A handy and usable guide to define in simple terras these areas must be prepared, since the difficulty of referring all writing problems to a specific text, as The Colgate Program refers to Perrin, Writer's Guide 57 and Index to English, is great. A common text is not available to all stu­ dents and they would resent using a long text for one course only. The technique of using such a text, in addition, would take class time. Only 56--- Cf. Charles Pries, Teaching of English, G. Wahr, Ann Arbor, Mich., 19^9* p. 128; W. W. Hatfield, An Experience Curriculum in English, Appleton-Century, New York, 1935* P* 228; Franklin Hoyt, "The Place of Grammar in the Elementary Curriculum," Teacher*s College Record J: U6J-500 (Nov. 1906); R.L. Lyman, Summery of Investigations Relating to Grammar, Language and Composition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 19^91 Scr&fford, op. clt., pp. 13-1^: but disagreement with this point of view in George Wykoff, "The Relation of a Knowledge of Grammar and Punctuation to Writing," Educational Administration and Supervision 31* 385“93 (Oct. 19^5). 57 PortefG. Perrin, Writer's Guide and Index to English, Scott-Poresman, Chicago, 19^2. 27 if all courses worked within the same framework to teach writing would a standard text be usable and even then the text material would not be spe­ cifically adapted to the problems of each course* C. Any guide must be in terms of writing for a particular puroos or set of purposes (in sociology) and must be non-academic, avoiding the use of terms not related to the course* V. Final Hypothesis: On the bases of these considerations it became possible to form a fi­ nal hypothesis: Michigan State College students in Introduction to Sociology, Soc. 201, can be taught certain writing skills within the framework of the course as outlined for the year 1950-51* In one quarter this training will: 1. Improve the student's ability to communicate in writing; 2. Improve the student's writing skills in certain specific areas of writing (as defined on Writing Hating Scale, page 3* 9 ); Improve the Btudent's grasp of subject matter in the course; U. Improve students' attitudes toward the course. 28 CHAPTER POUR FRAME OF REFERENCE: ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THIS STUDY Three assumptions are basic to this study, the first concerning the nature of "good communication" and how to teach it, the second, the neces­ sity for integrating the teaching of skills with all parts of the curricu­ lum, and the third, the inter-disciplinary nature of a study of language arts. None of these assumptions has been tested sufficiently to be ac­ cepted as proven, but they are supported, at least verbally, by the major­ ity of teachers of communication skills. If this study were directed primarily to teachers of skills, a sim­ ple statement of the philosophy of communication involved would suffice* but the teacher of "content" courses Is entitled to a fuller explanation, especially since he is apt to be more conservative in his own attitude toward language them most communication skills specialists. Even the so­ cial scientist, who has done so much for the development of modern lin­ guistic theory, may cling to the pattern of English training which this theory has outmoded. In general terms: Good communication is that which Is meaningful, effective, socially acceptable, and socially responsible. Communication is meaningful when it results from an awareness, conscious or unconscious, of the signs of structural meaning (grammatical form and structure); it is meaningful when it is clear, accurate, unambiguous In word choice and arrangement, and when it is organized in terms of p u m o s e and intention. Communication is effective when it is simple, forthright and specific, and when it is appropriate to the user, the subject and the situation in intention, tone, level of usage and organiza­ tion. Communication is socially acceptable when It is free from readily determinable illiteracies, and when it is characterized by observation of current linguistic conventions which are validated by the practice of educated writers and Breakers. Conmunication is 29 socially responsible when it is grounded in observable fact, in hon­ estly contrived opinion, in an awareness of personal and social bias, and w h e n it contributes to understanding and harmony among the great­ est number in a democratic s o c i e t y * 5 ° Frederic Reeve, in the article from which this definition is taken, elaborates on these generalizations; some of the lrrrollcations of such a definition in terms of teaching method, philosophy and impact on the whole educational process can be found in such books as Language in General Edu- 59 ' 60 cation. Comr.im* cat ions In General Education, and In the March 193? iesue Si of Education magazine* The whole theoretical point of view is translated 62 into practice in Perrin's monumental Writer's Guide and Index to English, as well as in the syllabus used in the basic Written end Spoken English 63 course at Michigan State College. The "communication" apo roach to language has its roots in many soils. 64 One of these is the educational philosophy of Dewey and its extension in 65 the Progressive Education movement* Perhaps the most important contribu­ tions here are the emphasis on the individual as the unit of attention and Frederic Reeve, "Toward a Philosophy of Communication," Education 72: no. 7: 450 (March 195?). 59 Language in General Education, D. Appleton-Century, New York, 1939* ^ Earl J. McGrath (Ed.), Communication in General Education, Wm.C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa, 1949* 61 Herbert Hackett (Issue Ed.), Education 72: 443-5OS (March 1952), Communication Skills Number. O p . clt. Written and Spoken English Syllabus, Michigan State College Press, East Lansing, Mich*, 19^9* ^ John Dewey, Democracy and Education, Macmillan, New York, 19171 among others. ^ Rf. footnote 59. 30 upon the total situation as the unit of teaching. The correlary of this emphasis is the rejection of prescription, the basing of grammatical rule and standards of usage on cultural rather than historical or academic pat­ terns, and the interrelating of all course work in terms of the social be­ havior, including linguistic behavior, of the individual. Cultural anthropology has furnished a mass of data leading to a theo­ ry of language which is non-prescriptive and relative, which treats lin­ guistic elements in a functional or operational manner. The insistance that language is a form of cultural behavior to be understood only as behavior guided and limited by specific speech communities and operating within the total context of situation is so generally accepted today that it is a constant surprise to find the teaching of absolute standards in grammar and usage, the setting off of language as a discreet discipline, and the 66 worship of the linguistic dognas of Latin grammar. A study by the writer discusses at least two hundred anthropological studies which make direct statements about the relative nature of language and points out how this view has been translated into semantics and otherwise applied in such fields as law, physics, economics, cybernetics and philosophy. The effect of the relative approach on teachers of communication skills has been largely indirect, they having taken the theory second-hand from other dis­ ciplines, especially semantics. Good general statements of the relative Herbert Hackett, Some Contributions Made by Anthropology to an Understanding of the Nature and Function of Language, unpublished study available from author, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Mich. 1951 31 67 68 69 of view In languagecan be found in Jespersen, Malinowski, Sapir, 70 71 72 73 7^ Bloomfield* Whorf, Cassirer, D.D. Lee, and Haring, t»oint A second contribution made by Anthropology is the emphasis on the 75 functional or operational use of linguistic elements. The work of Malin76 owski is most important here and its acceptance has been widespread. The whole functional approach to the explanation of behavior has been ques­ tioned, and this is true of linguistic behavior, but it makes a useful 7 otto Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar, C. Winter, Heidelberg, 1909; and The Philosophy of Grammar, Henry Holt, New York, I92U. 68 Branislaw Malinowski, "The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Lan­ guages," in C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, HarcourtBrace, New York, 1923* ^ Edward Sapir, "Language," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 9, Macmillan, New York, 1933, PP» 155-69: and Language: An Introduc­ tion to the Study of Speech, Harcourt-Brace, New York, 1921. 7® Leonard Bloomfield, Language, Henry Holt, New York, 1933; and Lin* guistic Aspects of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1939, Benjamin L. Whorf, Pour Articles on Metallngulsties. Foreign Ser­ vice Institute, Washington, D.C., 1950* 72 Ernst Cassirer, "The Influence of Language Upon the Development of Scientific Thought," Journal of Philosophy 39* 309-27 (June U, 19b?). ^ Dorothy D. Lee, "Linguistic Reflections of Wintu Thou^it," Inter­ national Journal of American Linguistics 10: 181—7 (Oct. 19^ ) . 7^ Douglas Haring, "Cultural Contexts of Thou^it and Communication," Quarterly Journal of Speech 32: 161-7 (April 1951). ^ Hackett, Some Contributions . . ., op. clt.. pp. 16-21. 76 0t>. clt. 32 frame of reference which the semantlclsts and others have sold to many 77 teachers of communication skills* Bloomfield has formulated the s— ^ R formula, where small r and s are verbal responses mediating between original stimuli and final responses. Some have talked about the "tool" 78 nature of concepts and Bridgeman discusses Einstein's "operational charac­ ter of concepts." "The concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations" in contrast with Newton’s absolutes such as time; " . . . true meaning of a term is to be found by observing what a man does with it, not what he says about it." 79 Lesser, in discussing functionalism in social anthropology, stresses the importance of the present, the interrelation of cultural facts, the im­ portance of observation as the basis of classification, and the necessity 80 of investigating alternatives to the norm. Malinowski points out: In any fundamental pursuit of man, hunting for example, speech is the necessary means of commtxnication . . . the one indispensible instru­ ment for creating the ties of the moment without which unified social action is impossible . . . The structure of this linguistic material i8 inextricably dependent on the course of the activity in which the utterance is used. The vocabulary and meaning are no less subordinate to action. 77 Linguistic Aspects of Science, op. clt. P.W. Bridgeman, The Logic of M o d e m Physics, Macmillan, New York, 1927. 79 XJ Alexander Lesser, "Functionalism in Social Anthropology," American Anthropologist 37s 386-93 (July-Sept. 1935)* 80 Op. clt., p. 309» 33 Thus language must "be studied as a mode of "behavior more than as a mere ••mirror of reflective thought." Lindesmith and Strauss, in their introductory text, Social Psychol81 ogy, give a good example of the functional approach to definition: Since the term "self" is used as a noun, the existence of a corre­ sponding entity or object seems to he implied . . . as erroneous as it would he to think of "speed" in the same manner. Both terms refer to events and relationships, rather than to entities having a defi­ nite location in space . . . The concept of self, if it is to he use­ ful and valid, must he formulated as an organization of activity. Further discussion and examples of the functional approach to language will he found in the Writing Guide and discussion of teaching methods in Chapter 6. A third contribution made by anthropology to linguistic theory is the now commonplace emphasis on speech as prior to, and more important than, written language in determining what language practice is. The result of this is best seen in the "usage" approach of Fries, Marckwardt and Pooley discussed in the following pages. Traditional linguistics has undergone drastic changes under the in­ fluence of the anthropological linguists. Presently the structural lin­ guists have little to offer in support of the present frame of reference, and indeed may he considered antagonistic to it. However, the cultural and behavioral linguists, whose woxk is sometimes classified as "metalingulstics," are in agreement on the essential point of view expressed here. 81 Alfred Lindesmith and Aneelm Strauss, Social Psychology, Dryden Press, New York, 19^9* P- 199* 3U Almost every important work in general linguistics can be cited, including those of Jeepersen, Sapir, Bloomfield, and Cassirer mentioned above, and 82 Sturtevant. The Bemanticists (including General Semanticists) may be considered as linguists although their standing with traditional linguists is some­ what shaky. Actually they have served in large part as middlemen for the transmission of ideas from anthropology, social-psychology, biology, math­ ematics, and other disciplines to the teacher of skills. Among the more 83 Zk usable of general studies in semantics are Ogden and Richards, Richards, 85 86 87 88 Hayakawa, Crieholm, M0rris, and Johnson. Their views, especially on the gjp Edgar Sturtevant, An Introduction to Linguistic Science, Tale University Press, New HaveiuConn., 19^7 • ^ C.K". Ogden and I.A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, HarcourtBrace, New York, 1923* zk I.A. Richards, Interpretation in Teaching, Harcourt-Brace, New York, 1938. ^ S.I. Hayakawa, Language in Action, Harcourt-Brace, New York, 19^3; and Language in Thought and Action, Harcourt-Brace, New York, 19^9* 86 Francis P. Crisholm, Introductory Lectures on General Semantics, Institute of General Semantics, Chicago, 1 9 ^ . 87 Charles Morris, Signs, Language and Behavior. Prentice-Hall, New York, I9U6 . Morris, in this work, structures the science of Semiotlc, with three divisions: A. Syntactic, language structure; B. Semantic, relation of signs to referents; C. Pragmatics, language as social behavior. 88 Wendell Johnson, People in Quan&rles, Harper, New York, 19h6; and "General Semantics and the Science Teacher," ETC. U: 275“ 8U (Summer 19^7)The latter is a clear statement of the point of view of much of this thesis. 35 nature of concepts, are too well known to need further explanation here; some of the applications to be made are evident in the later treatment of teaching method and the use of the Writing Guide, 89 Crowder has applied these principles directly to the problem of class­ ification in the social sciences, and this is perhaps the best single statement of the semantic approach applied to this field. Similarly, the "usage" linguists have served to translate the theory of Jeepersen, Sapir, and Bloomfield (among others) into practical terms supported by data based on observation of how people speak and write; on the basis of this observation they have attempted to define what the struc­ ture of the English language really is. Most influential of the "usage" 90 linguists is Fries, who has demonstrated that the grammatical categories of Latin are meaningless in current American usage and that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar are unrealistic in terms of the practice of the 91 best writers and speakers of the past and present. Leonard, and Marckwardt 9? and Walcott sure companion pieces which furnish important data about actual Norman A. Crowder, "Speculations on Methodology in the Social Sciences," ETC. Uj 2*41-57 (Summer 19*47)• 90 Charles Fries, Teaching of the English Lamguage, Thomas Nelson, New York, 1927? American English Grammar, D. Appleton-Centurv, New York, 19*40; Teaching of English, George Wahr, Ann Arbor, Mich., 19*49: and The Structure of English , Harcourt-Brace, New York, 1952, especially pp.?7^— 9^ Sterling Leonard, Current English Usage, English Monograph No. 1, National Council of Teachers of English, Chicago, 1932. 92 Albert Marckwardt and Fred Walcott, Facts About Ourrent English Usage. English Monograph No. 7» National Council of Teachers of English, D. Appleton-Century, New York, 193^. 36 93 usage. Kennedy gives a good 'bi'bliography and discussion of the views of 9U 95 linguists up to 1 9 ^ . Perrin and Pooley have done themost to popularize and apply the usage point ofview. The study of the development of language in the child has contributed much to the present theory of languageand theteaching of communication 96 97 98 skills. Piaget, Lewis, and G. Mead represent different stages in the in­ creasing knowledge in this area. Mead particularly is basic to any under­ standing of the frame of reference assumed in this study; language is the agency which makes possible the appearance of the "self* and permits the individual to be an object to itself; without language the universaliza­ tion of the process of role-taking, the "generalized other," would be im­ possible. It follows, then, that language cannot be studied outside its social context, the context of "situation" of Malinowski. To separate the contributions of social—psychology to the present frame of reference from the contributions of other disciplines is diffi­ cult, but it is important to make explicit some of the social—psycholog­ ical assumptions of the present study. In goreral it follows the approach 93 Arthur Kennedy, English Usage, D. Appleton-Century, New York, 19^2. Op. cit.; and "Teaching •Realistic* Grammar," The Elementary Eng>» lish Review 2?: Ul-5 (Feb. I9U5). 95 Robert Pooley, Teaching English Usage. D. Appleton-Century, New York, I9U6. Jean Piaget, The Language and Thought of the Child, HarcourtBrace, New York, 1926. M.M. Lewie, Infant Speech: A Study of the Beginnings of Language. Kegan Paul, London, 1936. 98 G-eorge Mead, Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, I93U. 37 99 of Kretch and Crutchfield, which has the advantage of unity and which develops several important principles which help to integrate those from the fields of communication skills, anthropology, linguistics, education, and child development discussed above. The emphasis on the whole, on "molar" behavior rather than on molec100 ular, springs from Gestalt psychologies and field theory in general; General Education, the "communication skills" approach and "functionalism" are all related to this concept of the whole. It is not necessary in ac­ cepting this principle to deny the explanatory value of such forces as habit, conditioning, imitation, and suggestion which influence the lin­ guistic behavior of individuals, but merely to emphasize the properties of the total, present, psychological field as the most important factors in linguistic behavior and in the teaching of skillB. For other purposes, including the case studies which are a part of this thesis, other frames of reference are more useful. A second emphasis is on the relation of needs and frustrations to the formation and changing of attitudes. An important principle here is: "The greater the need for a socially valued object, the more marked will 101 be the operation of behavioral determinants." This is a matter, first, of perception and the necessity for changing perceptions in order to change 99 David Kretch and Richard Crutchfield, Theory and Problems of So­ cial Psychology, McGraw-Hill, New York, 19**S. Ibid., Chapter 2, 101 Ibid.. p. S3 38 attitudes, in part by relating these to the perception of the larger 10? structure of which they are a part. The literature on the development or 103 changing of attitudes suggests that they are most easily changed when re­ lated to other attitudes and to existing values. One of the values present is status; language, to many, is a -i of determining or attaining sta­ tus. A second value to which any teaching method can appeal is that of 10U conformity to the group and its values; the experimental wor'c of Lewin and others is important here. A further principle which operates with the above is that objects which are close to each other in time or position tend to be apprehended as parts of a common structure, a point in any program of integration. 105 Factors in the reorganization of the cognitive process are important to the present frame of reference. One of these is: "The ease and rapid­ ity of the cognitive reorganization process is a function of the differ- 106 entiation, isolation, and rigidity of the original cognitive structure." Any teaching method must take into account the pliability of the original attitudes of students. Although the present stud;/ is not an example of the 102 , Ibid.. P. 9^ ff. Ibid. , Chapters 5 ^ 6. 10h Cf. J.L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive?, Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company, Washington, 193^1 and. Kurt Lewin, "Croup Decision and Social Change," in Theodore M. Newcomb and Eugene L. Hartley, Readings in Social Psychology, H. Holt, I9U7 , pp. 33°“3*lb. 105 Kretch and Crutchfield, op. clt.. Chapter U. 106 Ibid., p. 135. 39 formation of attitudes through group interaction, many of the principles are 'borrowed from such studies, as for example the elimination of lecture presentation of contmun lent ion skills and the attempts to get students to set their own standards through awareness of levels of usage. The above is a very brief account of some of the contrib\itions of social-psychology to the present frame of reference, For a more detailed statement of them the first six chapters of Kretoh and Crutchfield are a good starting point, with a wealth of "bibliographical reference. Applica­ tion of most of these orincioles is made in Lindesmith and Strauss, Social 107 Psychology. In conclusion, a final reference may indicate how these and other contributions from many disciplines can contribute to a theory of lan108 guage. Miller attempts to attack the problems of communication from an inter-disciplinary approach, including many of the viewpoints expressed above. There is no present study, however, which fully integrates the findings from all disciplines as the;/ relate to the process of communi­ cation. There is no comprehensive guide to how these findings can be applied in teaching skills. The following seem to be the more significant principles drawn from the above discussion; the;r form the frame of reference in which the present study operates: 107 Op. cit. 108 George A. Miller, Language and Communication, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1951. ho 1. Language is behavior and must be taught on behavioral principles. As such it is a social science. 2. As behavior it must be considered within the whole contextof sit­ uation, including linguistic context, which accompanies behavior. There is no such thing as writing, only writing for particular audiences, in partic­ ular situations, for particular ends. The measure is effectiveness in terms of purpose. 3. Language 1 b first of all a functioning tool of interaction and only relatively a means of reflective thought; as such it has no meaning apart from U. the the total context of situation; meaning is context. As behavior it must adapt to the situation, the user, the audience, subject matter, and the end for which it is used. 5. As behavior it must be studied in terms of group norms, the expec­ tations of the group as to usage, content, and purpose. These expectations of the group must be discovered by observation; they cannot be prescribed by arbitrary decisions. 6. The rules of grammar and the classifications of language cannot be drawn from classical or other sources outside the culture. Therefore, lan­ guage cannot be taught prescriptlvely, since the orescrlption may fail to keep up with the actual practice in a culture. The student must be taught to observe usage and to fit his communication to accepted good uBage. 7. The his student must be taught to observe language behavior, including own, so that he will be conscious of differences demanded by different language situations. He must be made aware of a variety of good models to guide him in different communication situations. Ul 8. The unit of writing is not the part - the word, sentence, or para­ graph — but is the total perception to be transmitted, to which the parts are bound. Thus, the approach to teaching writing is the perception of the whole, the subject and purpose, the audience and the occasion; the gram­ matical and structural units should be considered only as they aid or hin­ der the total expression, 9* The end of language is not language but the communication of con­ tent, leading to better perception by the audience. The teaching of writ­ ing will, then, be concerned first with what is said; how it is said will develop in part from this. 10. The emphasis in the teaching of writing must be on clarity, effec­ tiveness, accuracy, and interest, for a particular audience. Grammatical correctness is merely one means to this end. 11. Writing as behavior has social responsibility, including proper recognition of bias, accurate use of data, and a positive acceptance of the opinions of others and the relativity of knowledge, 1?. Any teaching method must make use of these principles of percep­ tion, motivation, and learning which seem to be supported by the most sig­ nificant data. These are the assumptions on which the present thesis is based; their implementation will follow in the following chapters. ^3 CHAPTER FIVE RESEARCH DESIGN To test the hypothesis within the frame of reference stated above the following research design was selected: I* Universe and Sample: The universe to be studied includes all students at Michigan State College enrolled in Introduction to Sociology, Soc. 201, during the Spring term of 1950— Actually the study is divided into two parts, with a con­ trol and an experimental section for each of two instructors; the two sets of data are considered as parallel and only general comparisons are made between them. The samples, thus, are two sets of two sections (out of the five offered during the term). They were selected so that each teacher would have two sections and on no other basis. Teacher HH Control Experimental Teacher JM Control Experimental II. Comparability of Sections: A. Sections taught by HH: If the experiment is to be valid it is, of course, necessary that the experimental and control groups be made up of students who are similar. Since students register alphabetically, without knowing in this course which teacher will teach a particular section, the only factor which might he expected to be a basis for differential selection is the choice of hour and either a M-Tf-7, one hour section or a T-Th, one and a half hour section. **3 Both sections taught by HH met early in the afternoon, the experimental on M»¥-y at 1 for one hour, and the control on T-Th at 2 for one and a half hours. There is no evidence that the slight difference in time or the dayhour sequence would result in selectivity since individual scheduling is more or less determined by the individual's total program while the time of registering determines the availability of sections. An effort was made late in registration to equalize sections, and to push students toward smaller ones. This effort was only partially success­ ful; the control group had an enrollment of 33 » the experimental group *40. In terms of the purpose of the experiment this difference in size may have Influenced the results to the advantage of the smaller, control group. Of this initial enrollment complete data were obtained for 29 in the control and 33 in the experimental sections, the others being lost by rear­ son of very late registration or early completion of the course (Seniors and one draftee). To test whether the two groups were random samples from the same universe nine characteristics were selected because they seemed to be Im­ portant to the experiment and, in part, because data on them were readily available, 109 1, general characteristics: a. Sex: b. Class: grouped: Freshman-Sophomore; Junior-Senior, As will be indicated below certain groupings of data had to be made to satisfy the Chi Square requirement with respect to number of cases in individual cells. The minimum is five according to Allen Edvards, Sta­ tistical Analysis, Rinehart, New York, 19^6, P* ?53* 2, Linguistic ability: c. Performance on the linguistic Bee t ion of the American Coun- 110 cil on Education Psychological Examination and the reading vocabulary and 111 reading comprehension sections of the Cooperative English Test. These tests are given all entering Freshmen and these three sections of the tests have been used by the Board of Examiners and the Department of Written and Spo­ ken English for assignment of students to remedial work, for special per­ mission to take the comprehensive examination early, for predicting success 112 in college and for counseling. The decile rank of each student in each of the three linguistic sections was added to the two others for a combined score ranging from 3 to 30: Grouped: 3-11; 12-20; 21-26; 27-30. d. Letter grades (A, B, C, D, F) on the Written and Spoken Eng­ lish Comprehensive examination, completed by all but transfer students. Grouped: A^B; C-D. (Hiere were no final F grades since F students repeated until they got a higher grade, or dropped out of school.) e. Decile rank on the theme given as a part of the same exami­ nation. Grouped by deciles: 1-5; 6-S; 9-10* Psychological Examination, American Council on Education, 19U9 Edition, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 19^9« Cooperative English Test, Test C2: Reading Comprehension, Form Y , Cooperative Test Service, New York, 19^8. lip For example an r of ,1+7 between the combined language scores and the grade-point average of first term Freshmen is reported in an unpub­ lished study by the Board of Examiners, Other correlations from the same source are of interest s b are those shown in Balph Berdie, Paul Dressel and Paul Kelso, "Belative Validity of the q and L Scores of the ACS Psy­ chological Examination," Educational and Psychological Measurement 11: 803-12 (Winter 1951). Michigan State College is "State College II" in this study. **5 f. Grades on a 30 minute written exercise given during the second class period. Each paper was graded by two raters with a numerical range of Plus 7 (A+) to Minus 5 (^)t a grade of C equals 0. The two scores were then added, giving a possible range of Plus lU to Minus 10, Grouped: Plus 2 and up; 0 and Plus 1; Minus 1 — Minus 2; Minus 3 and down. 3. Background in sociology: g. Letter grade on the Social Science Basic comprehensive exam­ ination, when taken. Grouped: A-3; 0-D; Didn't take the course. h. Letter grade on Effective Living Basic comprehensive examina­ tion, where taken. Grouped: A-B; C-D; Didn't take the course. i. Decile rank of an objective pre-test in sociology, given at end of the first week in the course. Grouped by deciles: 1-2; J-G; 7-5; 9-10. 113 These characteristics were tested by Chi Square* 1. General character!sties* a. Sex: . 3 0 ^ P ^ * ? 0 . degrees of freedom (df.) 1. b. Class: « 3 0 > P > .20, df. 1. 2 . Linguistic ability: c. Linguistic factors on the ACE Psychological and Cooperative English tests: 113 •9 5 ? ? } *90, P > .20, df. 1, means that the probability is less than 30 per cent and greater than 20 per cent that the two samples are drawn from the same universe and that they are not significantly different. In sociological studies a probability of .05 is often considered as the "sig­ nificant'' level of confidence, and this will be used in this thesis. A "P" cf less than .05 means that in less than five times out of 100 would a difference as large as that obtained occur by chance. The degree of freedom, df., is merely r measure designed to assign the Chi Souare to the p.TTCpriate row in the table of probabilities. U6 d. Written and Spoken English comp rehens ire:.90^P^.80, df. 1. e. Written and Spoken English theme:.90^1*^ f. Written pre-test: P equals *99* df. 3. 3. Background .SO,df.2, In sociology: g. Social Science comprehensive: . 7 0 ^ P ^ . 6 0 t df. 2. h. Effective Living comprehensive: i. Sociology pre-test: •95^P^*9^t . I O ^ P ^ . 0 5 , df. 2. df. 3» On the "basis of the Chi-SquAre test there appear to "be no reasons to reject the null hypothesis that the two groups taught "by HH are from the same universe; they may "be considered as comparable for the purpose of this study. Only the Effective Living comprehensive examination results arroroach the 5 P Br cent level of confidence. Even though none of these factors, examined in isolation, shows sig­ nificant differences, it is possible that consistent, even though small, differences all tending in the same direction might make the two groups non-comparable. Inspection of the data shows that the small differences which do exist tend to cancel each other. For example, although the con­ trol group did slightly better on the linguistic factors on the entrance examinations, it was somewhat lower on the Written and Spoken English comprehensive and on the theme written as a part of this examination. It wns somewhat lower on the Social Science comprehensive, with a somewhat higher per cent not having had the course, but was higher on the Effective Living comprehensive. The two groups are almost identical on the only two measures which were applied to all students, the written pre-test and the sociology pre-test. U7 The comparative importance of the measures has not been determined, nor have the validity or reliability been determined except on the lin- 11k guistic portions of the entrance examinations and for the written pre-test and sociology pre-test which are discussdd in Chapter 7» II. Comparability of Sections; B. Sections taught by J M : The same general conclusions can be drawn about the sections taught by JM — that they are not significantly different. He also tau^it a one hour M-1J-F section and a one and a half hour T-Th section, but the control and experimental hour-day sequences were reversed, with the experimental taking the one and a half hour T-Th sequence. There were 36 complete cases out of the Ub starting the experimental section and 33 out of 50 In the control. The greater loss in the latter group is largely the loss of Sen­ iors, who were not required to complete the last week of the course. There is a possibility that the somewhat larger loss may have had some effect on the results of the experiment but this is unlikely since these Individuals were excluded from the final comparisons. Results of the Chi-Square test show the following probabilities with resnect to the experimental and control groups taught by JM: 1. General characteristics: a. Sex: b. Class: df. .80^ P > .70, df. 1. ?. Linguistic ability: C. lish tests: Linguistic factors on the ACE Psychological and Cooperative E .99^P^»95* df. 3 . Ill; x Cf. footnote 112 . Us d. Written and Spoken English comprehensive: . 3 0 ^ 1 ^ .20, e* Written and Spoken English theme: f. Written pre-test: .SO^P^.70, df* 1. -95^1*^ .90, df. 2. df. 3» 3• Background in sociology: g. Social Science comprehensive: h. Effective Living comprehensive: i. Sociology pre-test: • 9 9 ^ P ^ » 9 5 » df. 2. .UO^ P } *30, df. 2. .30^ P ^ .20, df. 3» There appears to he no evidence that the sections differ significantly. Neither is there any evidence that the slight differences between sections fall consistently in one direction. The control group was somewhat lower on the Written and Spoken English comprehensive and on the written pre­ test, but the groups were almost identical on the linguistic factors entranceexaminations of the and on the written and Spoken English theme. The con­ trol group was somewhat higher on the Effective Living comprehensive but lower on the sociology pre-test; the groups were almost identical on the Social Science comprehensive. The differences seem to cancel each other. III. General Research Design: Having established that, as far as may be ascertained, the groups taught by HH are equivalent and the groups taught by Jl£ are equivalent, consideration should be given to the pattern of the research design. The general design for both sets of data is the before-after experi­ ment with control and experimental groups. The experimental groups were subjected to a set of related variables which were not presented to the control groups. It is assumed that other variables were randomly distrib­ uted in the paired groups. 49 _____________ Control groupB.______ __________ Experimental groups. 1. Written pre-test. 1. The same. 2 • Sociology pre-test. 2. The same. 3. Regular objective examinations, oral quizzes, etc., to provide regular incentives and pres­ sures. Not more than one writ­ ten exercise not provided for by the experiment (i.e. #1 and #5). 3. Some form of written work each week, in class or as homework. Corrected and evaluated by teacher using Writing Scale and Guide B. Writing not reaching a cer­ tain standard to be rewritten before it is accepted for grading for content. Standard set by teacher. C. No objective examinations except as provided in the experiment (i.e. §2. and #4). 4. Sociology pre-test repeated as post— test dxiring final exam­ ination period. U. The same. 5. Written post-test. 5. The same. 6. Final grade determined as the teacher decides but not expli­ citly on quality of writing 6. Final grade determined as the teacher decides except that writing quality is explicitly included. 7. Teacher evaluation form. 7. The sane. A detailed breakdown of this design will be made in the next chapter. 50 CHAPTER SIX TEACHING METHODS THE EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLE I. Teaching Method Used in Sections Taught by H H s Introduction to Sociology, Soc. HOI, is the first of a three term sequence at Michigan State College, followed by Introduction to Social Psychology and Introduction to Social Anthropology, Students are expected to have taken as a prerequisite either the Social Science Basic or the Effective Living Basic or to be of Sophomore standing. The course runs for a quarter (which varies from 9 to 10 weeks), meeting for three hours each week; actually the experimental term ran for 30 hours, including a two hour final examination. The text was Wilson and Kolb's book of readings. Sociological Analy115 llT sis. A collateral text was selected, Maclver and Page, Society, to fur­ nish a wider range of examples of writing and because a complete outline and list of readings had already been prepared and used bv an experienced 117 member of the department; the course organization And readings were thus prepared in line with the objectives of the course outlined by the de­ partment. The purpose of this adoption was to make sure that the experi­ ment operated within the framework of the course set by the department; teAcher HH had not participated in the discussions which led to the state­ ment of aims for the course since he was a member of the staff of the Written and Spoken English Department. 115 Op. clt. 116 Op. clt. ^ 7 Dr. John Useem. The outline will be found In Appendix A. 51 A detailed lecture outline was prepared for the entire course in advance and followed without major changes in "both sections, except as indicated "below. The experimental variables were introduced in three ways: A. During the periods in which the control group was taking objec­ tive or oral examinations or reviewing the previous week's work, the ex­ perimental group was given written exercises, with a minute or two of instruction in the problems they might face in writing: B. As a matter of emphasis when a problem of communication, oral or written, arose in class; C. In the grading and correcting of papers and in the resultant discus­ sions in class, after class, and d\iring office hours. In all other re­ spects the sections were kept parallel. In the following outline the material is presented in three columns, 11S the first referring to the course outline and reeding assignments, the second to the control content and course organization and the third to the experimental variables. In some parts the material is treated at less length than in others; this is done to avoid repetition of types of mater­ ial which have already been discussed. 118 Ibid. Outline Reference: Control method and general course outline: Experimental variables:____________ Lesson 1: 1. Mechanics of course, text, seating, grading, attendance, etc. 1. No statement of writing emphasis. 1A 13 2. Nature of science; stress on process, scientific method, relativity of classification. Weber, "Science as Vocation;" the place of social sci­ ence among sciences. 3. Scientific method, nature and function of hypothesis, testing by controlled observation, importance of validated measuring instruments. U. Concepts and generalizations as tools of science. Lesson 2: 1. Objective pre-test in sociology. Leaaon 3: 1. Process of abstracting as applied to Sorokin'8 classification of sociology as a generalizing science. Ladder of abstraction: non-inclusive, non-exclve sive, non-causal. 2. Sorokin*s types of sociology, structural, dynamic, special. Value of this classifi­ cation in terms of an actual social 119 Cf. Sources in General Semantics, Chapter U above Outline reference: Control method and general course outline: Experimental variables: operation (e.g. status and role); stress classification as arbitrary and as valu­ able only when it is useful in explain­ ing the dAta. Frame of reference. 3* Functional or operational definitions. Lesson U: I C 1 1. Murdock's discussion of the nature of culture as learned, inculcated, social, ideational, gratifying, adaptive, inte­ grative. ?. Usefulness of this type of definition. 3. Sumner's discussion of mores: have the authority of facts, are unrecorded, tend to inertia and rigidity, are not examined, sacred, persistent, but var­ iable. The danger of the "is" type of definition; value of considering mores as forces. Myrdal's critique of the concept "mores;11 stress the fictional, relative, the "in as much as" quality of concepts. 5. Nature of definition; stress the value of operational definitions explicitly as­ signed to a frame of reference. VJl V_*J Outline reference: Control method and general couree outline: Experimental variables: 6. Three questions for written pre-test, on which students will write next class period: 6. The same. The questions were chosen be­ cause they call for: A. Discuss mores. B. Discuss culture. A. Clear statement and limitation of subject. B. Functional and/or frame of refer­ ence definitions. C. What do we mean by the functional approach to definition? C. Understanding of fictional, relative nature of concepts. D. Demand examples. Students were not informed of these factors, nor were they given any in­ struction in writing or any comment on the importance of writing. Lesson 5: 1. Written pre-teat, minutes, choice of one of two questions: A. Discuss mores; B. Di 8CUB9 culture. I C ? 2. Cultural variability; perception of world ends and means. 1. No instructions in writing or comments on the place of writing in this course 3. Adaptive nature of cultural behavior. U. No distribution or discussion of Guide or Scale. They will not be used in this Section. U. Five minutes for distribution and ex­ planation of Writing Guide and Bating Scale. For the first time the class is told of the emphasis of the course on writing, that all papers will be graded Outline reference: Control method and general courae outline: Experimental variables: tor writing as well as content, that writing which falls below a certain lev­ el must be rewritten before it will be accepted for content grade. Stress on positive goals of good communication, grades, grasp of subject matter, profes­ sional goals, conformity to standards set by teacher, expectations in use of language of the educational status for which students are working. Leaaon 6: I C 2 1. Kluckholn and Leighton*s "Navaho View of Life* in terras of perceotion of the world, ends and means. II A 2. Problem of what is innate or basic to personality. 3. Discussion of first written exercise. No comment on writing except to answer direct questions. 3. Discussion of papers in terms of con­ tent and writing weaknesses which inter­ fere with presentation of subject matter. These are essentially the same as those pointed out in the explanation of choice of question above, since the areas of expected problems had been determined in the pre-experimental trials. U. Repeat explanation of use of Guide and Scale and the expectations of the course. Papers below C grade in writing to be re­ written; any paper may be if the student wants to Improve grade. Bnphasis on Outline reference: Content method and general course outline: Experimental variables:__________________ relation of poor writing to poor presenta*tion of subject matter, with examples of papers which failed to show what the stu­ dent actually knew. p.169 ff. 5. Assigned Malinowski's discussion of functionalism. Lesson 7* II A 2 p. I S ? ff. 1. Piaget, growth of personality in child* 2. 0. Mead, self and generalized other, II A 3 3. Assigned Green's "Polish Family. U. Questions given for 2nd writing exer­ cise, for next class period: A. Discuss isolated child on playground in terms of Mead and Piaget, B. Discuss free enterprise in terms of the generalized other, (This proved a poor question for the class,) C. How do cultures vary in their atti­ tudes toward sex? In terms of per­ ception, ends, means, Lesson 8: 1. 30 minute oral quiz over previous week's work, using same general ques­ tions as for experimental group. 1. Five minute presentation of problems which might be met in answering the above questions: VJl cr\ Outline reference: Content method and general course ontline: Experimental variables: A. Limitation of subject; relation of answer to a total answer. B. Specificity; examples. C. Clear sentence structure; paragraph unity. D. Nature of concepts, 30 minute written exercise, choice of one of the three questions. Students may ask any questions on how to organize answer and limit subject. II A 3 2. Personality disorganization. Leaaon 3 : 1. Green's "Polish Family" as a starting point for discussion of Michigan Farm family, laboring class family. II A 3 ?. Horney's discussion of culture and neurosis. 3. Return 2nd written exercise, no comments in class but students invited to ask questions after class, or during office hours. Leaaon 13: 1. Weaicnesses and strengths in generali­ zations such as Green's and limey's. II B 2, Population, ecology. Outline reference: II B Content method and general course outline: Experimental variables: 3. Burgess* theory of concentric growth of ci ties* U. Questions for 3rd written exercise, for next class period: A. Criticize Green study. What are its limitations in methods and measuring instruments? B. Relate personality disorganization to ecology. C. How does the concept of the mores relate to our discussion of person­ ality disorganization or the social­ ization of personality? Lesson 11: 1. 30 minute objective examination over first three week’s work. 1. ?ive minute discussion of problems in answering the above types of questions: A. Critical evaluation in terms of frame of reference used; its value in describing certain types of data. B. Recognition of other frames of refer­ ence. C. Examples. D. Value judgments. 30 minute written exercise on choice of one question out of the above three. Outline reference: Content method and general course outline: Experimental variables: 2. Students exchange papers to correct outside of classi using Scale and Guide. Told to stresB in correcting: Clarity and adaptability to reader; limitation of subject, example, frame of reference. II C 2 3. Introduction to status and role. Lesson 12: II C 2 1. Linton on status; other types of definition: A. Static definition: position in pat­ tern. B. Less static: collection of rights and obligations. C. Functional: operation of rights and obligations. 2. Are there value judgments in Linton? e.g. "Adjusted societies have more ascribed than achieved statuses." Bias in use of ad^ugted." Cf. Fromm, Escape From Free- 3* Role in terms of status. Eric Fromm, Escape From Freedom. Rinehart, New York, 13Ul. Outline reference: Lesson 13: II C ? Content method and general course outline Experimental variables: 1. Role, the reciprocal of status. ?. Function of status and role. II C 1 3. Adaptation and accommodation. II C 3 The mores and social control. III A 1 5. Problem of classification of social groups: different methods of classi­ fication. Lesson lH: 1. 15 minute discussion of objective examination. 1. 15 minute discussion of 3rd written ex­ ercise, especially of question of ecol­ ogy and personality. Most answers were poor because: A. Failure to grasp what ecology is or how it operates; static definitions. B. Failure to show cause and effect re­ lationships, or assumption of them. C. Failure to limit subject, to give example, to state frame of reference. Ill A ? 2, Cooley, primary groups. 3. Human nature not isolated but social­ ised. Of. Tfevis, Human Society. 1?1 Op. clt.. p. 173 ff. Outline reference: r>. 'I ff. Ill A ? Content method and general course ontl lne: Experimental variables: U. Lundborg on sociography; the community a system of energy operating in a field of force, in tine. 5. Secondary groups. Hartshorne on college group8. 6. Transfer of primarv• group to 1 symbolb ipo behavior in secondary groups. Lee son 1£: 1. Discussion of sociogram. Assignment to orevnare one for next c Ipsp.. Discussion of nature of diagrams and other figures, necessity for clarity in use of symbols, marginal notes, etc. Abstractive nature of such tools of com­ munication . Same assignment but with accompanying written explanation; to be handed in. Ill 7 1 P. Collective behavior. 3. Attitude formation. Cf. Kretch and ry and Problems rrob Crutchfield, Theory of IP 3------Social Psychology! Lesson 16: Ill V 1 1. Public opinion. Mob formation a n d functioning. Cf. Ox-Bow Incident.^ 1 Ipp Herbert Hackett, "The Language of Motivation - an institutional analysis," unpublished article new in hands of editors, available frcm author, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, 1951. 1?3 Op. clt. 1?U W.V. Clark, Ox-Bow Incident, Random House, N e w York, lQltO. Out! ir.e reference: Lessor. 17: III c; Content method and geneial course outline: Experimental variables; 1. Assignment for the next two we^ke. All read section on family organization and two other sections on organizations. The "basis of the discussion will "be the family: all other institutions will "be related to this. ?. Written assignment to be done outside of class; pick one generalization about institutions and analyze it in terms of a specific institutional situation. Five minute discussion of some of the problems involved: A. Clear statement of theory involved and its frame of reference. B. Discussion within this frame of reference. C. Is the theory useful in explaining the data? Does it apply? D. Is it capable of being tested? III B P 3. Redfieldf6 "Folk Society," familial and sacred. Application to rural remnants, "business and politics; sacred and famil­ ial nature of our institutions. Cf. "This Business of ITar." 5 IPS ' Herbert Hackett, "This Business of War," Motive no. 1: 5-6 (Oct. 19H1). Outline reference: Content Method and general course outline: Lessor. I S : III B 2 1. Shift from familial-sacred to institu­ tional-impersonal. III C 2. Institutions defined in terms of needs, individual and group. L e ssor! 19: 1. Function of the family in terms of needs. Shift in function. Cf. Folk Culture of the Yucatan. ^ III C“ 5 T Experimental variables; 2, The dating complex, Waller. Lesser. 20: III B 3 1. Communal and associetional society; Durkhelm’s mechanical and organic solidarity; gemeinschaft and gesellshaft. Stress rel­ ative nature of these schemes. Ill C l 2. Nature of freedom in terms of political structure, DeGree. Cf. Fromm. Lessor. .21: 1. 30 minute objective test plus formation of a hypothesis, 1, Nothing. 2. Nature of hypothesis and testing of hypothesis. Discussion of hypotheses written on examination. 2. The same. 3. Assigned to read about hypothesis from source thev select. Bobert Redfield, Folk Culture of the Yucatan. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, lQ^l. Outline reference: Lesson 22: Content method and general course outline: Experimental variables; 1, Discussion of hypotheses; working out of some in class and setting up their testing methods; discussion of what the results would prove and what they would net prove. 1. Divided into groups according to institu­ tions selected; prepared hypotheses about these institutions. Discussed some of them and then gave back to individual to refine outside of class, to prepare a usable hypothesis and to outline some method of testing it. Discussion of some problems: A. Ambiguous statements; simplicity. B. Testability. C. Basic types of research design. Lesson ?5: in c 5 1, Religious institutions, cult, sect, etc., with questions raised hy class. ?. Other institutions; questions raised by class. Lesser. III D 1. Stratification. ?. Relation of institutions and strstifi cation. Outline ref erence: Control method and general course outline: Experimental variables: Lesson ?5: 1. Discussion of three questions: 1. Write 30 minutes on one of three ques­ tions, open book; III D" III D 2 A. What institution will probably allow the breaking down of ethnic stratifi­ cation most easily? B. Can stratification be broker, down by law? FIPC? Income Tax? C. Discuss the institution of college football in sociological terms. III D 2. Mobility. Lesson 26: IV A 1 1. Conjunctive processes; cooperation; so­ cial ana psychological conditions leading to cooperation. 2. Boethlisberger's study of Western Electric. 3. Myrdal's "accommodating* leadership, Co—cps as conjunctive institutions. Lessor. 27: IV A 2 1. Disjunctive social processes; competition; social and psychological conditions which encourage competition. 2, College situations of competition. Lesson 2S: IV B 1. Theories of social change. cr\ ui Out.', ine reference; Control method and general course outline; Ogburn’s ’’cultural lag;” diffusion vs. parallel development. 2. Social and psychological conditions which encourage change. Lesson 29-30? Final examination; 1. U5 minute sociology post-test. (Same as sociology pre-test.) 2. 30 minute written post-test; choice of one of thiee questions; A. Discuss the formation of mores. B. Dieeuss disjunctive social processes. C. Discuss cultural change. 3. Teecher Evaluation Sheet, plus additional comment on: A. What if anything has this course done to help you "better communicate your know­ ledge of sociology? B. Has this helped or hindered your grasp of sociology? Experimental variables; 67 II. Summary of the Teaching Methods Which form the Tftrparlaental Variables for the Section Taught by H Ht The teaching methods which form the experimental variables may "be summarised as follows: experimental section taught by HH: 1. A program of motivation to encourage students to want to improve their writing. A. Early, clear presentation of course objectives, the importance of writing in the proper use of sociological material, the d o s t relation between writing skills and the ability to understand and use this mater­ ial. B. Negative pressure; the requirement that all papers meet the writing standards set by the teacher before they are accepted for grading content; enforced rewriting of all papers below the grade of C. C. Constant repetition of the importance of writing in terms of professional goals, and in terms of grades in this and other college courses. D. Constant attitude on the part of the teacher that writing is important, that all forms of communication skills are important, including stress on oral communication in class. S. Effort to set pattern of conformity to standards Bet by the college and to the values of the educational status for which students aspire. 2. The use of models of good writing for a variety of purposes, in­ cluding semi-technical report writing: explicit reference to such models; examples of poor writing in sociology, especially academic or stilted wrlting. 68 3* Weekly writing assignments, some In test situations and some as homework. (Bight assignments.) A. The widest variety of assignments possible, chosen to cover the types of subject matter of the course and to illustrate different writing situations which call for the solution of varying writing prob­ lems. B. A five minute discussion prior to each assignment to point out some of the expectations of the teacher and some of the writing problems involved. These problems not chosen arbitrarily but based on pre-experimental observations of like writing situations in sociology. C. Marking of all papers for writing as well as content: (1) Use of Writing Scale for all papers: reference to Writing Guide. (?) Comments on papers in addition, stressing the relation of writing effectiveness in presentation of sociological material. D. Follow-up discussion of papers and answers to questions af­ ter the papers have been graded, pointing out common weaknesses, good answers and reasons for Ineffective answers, always in terms of actual problems; no discussion of theoretical problems of writing or presenta­ tion of grammatical rules as such. B. Additional work on writing or content problems through office interviews, at the student*s request. III. Writing Scale and Writing Guide: The most important teaching aids used were the Writing Scale and Writing Guide, which were designed to help the teacher cover a wide variety of writing problems as efficiently as possible. 69 The validity of the scale is discussed in Chapter 7; its purpose should be stated. It is not an additive scale in which the parts are Added to arrive at a grade. It merely points out areas of weakness and strength. It is a teaching aid. not a grading device. The Guide attempt to make explicit by example and non-technlcal definition the problems evaluated by the Scale. WRITING RATING SCALE Name 1. Content ♦ ♦ + No Ap. - - - 3. Choice of words, specificity, simplicity, avoids jargon, etc. Conceptualization: A. Functional, operational, avoids i8 as equation, appli­ cation by example, etc. B. Limits of generalization, noninclusive, non-exclusive, noncausal, etc. C. Relative nature, time, purpose, user, context;fictional nature. 5, Antecedents, pronoun, verb. 6. Sentence structure: A. Elemental, choppy, fragment, and...and. etc. B. Involved, subordination, punc­ tuation, vagueness, etc. 7. Statement and limitation of sub­ ject, organization, etc. 8. Value judgments, commenting ad­ jectives, objectivity, etc. I J TO 127 GUI DBS FOR USB 07 WRITING RATING SCALE I. CONTENT: (Rate as Good, Not on Subject, Too General, etc., plus let­ ter grade.) A. Does it answer the question? (or problem?) The question is often so broad that a complete answer is not possible. A good answer will be either: 1. An outline of the whole subject; (This tends to be inadequate since it does not show if the writer can analyze his generali­ zations. ) 2. Or a full discussion of one part of the subject; (This must be related to the whole subject area and not presented as if it were a complete answer.) B. Does it indicate that the writer has thought for himself, he merely repeating what he has read or has been told? or is C. Does it pay proper attention to what the reader knows and what he does not know? Does it serve the purpose for which it is written? I. WRITING EFFECTIV5NSSS: (Rate as Clear, Hard to follow. Vague, etc., plus letter grade.) A. Does the writer communicate effectively and clearly so that an­ other member of the class can understand shat he means to say? B. Is the writing adapted to the subject and purpose of the exer­ cise? C. Do mechanical and grammatical weaknesses interfere with clear communication? (THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE SCALE SHOULD B3 MARKED:) PLUS-PLUS . . . PLUS.......... NO APPLICATION. MINUS ........ MINUS-MINUS . . 127 Excellent usage. Satisfactory; does not interfere with communication. Not a neutral point, nor a balance of good and bad, but NO APPLICATION. Some weaknesses which need attention. Weaknesses so serious that they Interfere with good communication. This Guide has a dual purpose: it serves as a guide for students and tne teacher, and it is an explanation of the checking of items on the Scale and, in part, of whAt the grades and check marks mean. 71 III# CHOICE OF WORDS; Is the language simple* specific? Does it avoid Jargon and ambiguous words? A. Simple and direct: Does it use coamon words except to produce special effects? B. Concrete# specific: Does it call up a sense image or use the standard instruments of measurement, IQ, Mean, ruler, scale, etc, (e.g. "face to face relationship;" "according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Cost of Living Index...,") C. Appropriate to the reader:Does it use learned Jargon and "textbook" writing? Is it appropriate for the other students in this course? D. Unambiguous: Does it avoid the use of words which have not been ex­ plicitly defined or which are not used in the same way by all read­ ers? (e.g. avoid "primitive,""good,""educated," "freedom," unless defined.) IV. CONCEPTUALIZATION: Are the concepts useful for the purpose you put them to? Do they function in an efficient manner? A. Functional or operational: Concepts such as "prejudice" are best de­ fined In terms of their use or function. Avoid dictionary defini­ tions which say that something Jhs something (e.g. "Role ijs A, B, and C.") In terms of function "Role does these things within this framework for these purposes." There is no such thing as "role;" it Is a process and we use the abstract word "role* to permit us to talk about the process. The word is not the thing which it iden­ tifies; it is a lab . which we use for certain purposes. B. Limits of generalization, non-lr.clurive, non-exclusive, noncausal: 1. Concepts are genei*ali*ations (abstractions) which take certain characteristics of a group of related things and say, "I£ we consider these characteristics important, then we can take these items and group them, using a symbol (concept) to identify them as a group, for the purpose we have in mind." 2. Generalisations do not include all the characteristics of the objects grouped. A concept is not a whole picture, but only a brief outline of what seems important for a particular purpose, (e.g. Any definition of "society" will omit many characteristics of a n y particular society, and these may be important in other contexts. "Lower class" is a useful but very limited term; if the frame of reference is economic the definition may very well leave out characteristics of educational level, aesthetic ap­ preciation, etc.) t. The fact that a concept identifies neveral rharacteristics of a (frouu of items does not mean that there is a necessary relation­ ship among them, or among the items themselves. Te.g. We might define " co— sd" as blue— ,)ean wearing, hard drinking, and f e m a l e , but this is an arbitrary selection of t m i t s ami there is no necessary cause and effect relationship, "Blue— Jeans do not cause drinking, necessarily. The concept "slims* mav be useful ror certain purposes and nay include certain conditions, poor hous­ ing, crime, etc., but this label does not show necessary rela­ tionships. It does not show that slums are either causes or ef­ fects of these conditions.) Pelative nature of generalizations: All are relative to: a. Time: (Communist 19S1 is not Communist 19Uh.) Purpose: (Ethnocentrism may be defined in tenng of group sol­ idarity if we aro discuBslng groups, but it may be redefined in terms of psychological needs if the purpose ia to describe individual a.) C. U o e r : The user he? a f ratis of reference end his definitions reflect this. (e.g. To a 6*8" man, ft man la short.) Context: Words change according to their relationship to other words and in relationship to the whole context o r situation, the total universe in which they operate, (e.g. "hot," "cul­ ture," "society.” ) e. A f fect: The emotional overtones (connotations') whici the user or hearer may Add to the word may be more important than the denotative meanings, (e.g. " communisi," "freedom.") ^- cNTSCEHSNTS: Is 'he relationship between pronouns or verbs and the words to which they refer clear0 pronouns an * verbs must agree with the! r antecedents in mmb^r, gander, etc. T'.e c-•vjnonest mistake ).« the indefinite pronoun, which has no clear antecedent, (e.g. *To sv suend too much money in Washington." Who are the---? Tf you know, name *he;n; i *' you don't know, say sol) VT. SENTENCE STRUCTURE: Is the sentence structure too complicated or too simple for exact, clear meaning? A. Too simpler A good sentence, like a good outline, stresses the important ideas and subordinates other Ideas. Short, chopoy sen­ tences are tiresome to read and usually show a poor sense of the relative importance of different ideas. And... and... sentences have the sameweakness. Frnyruen te, usually lacking a verb, are good only for special effects suci ns eivohaei*. B. (''ver-involved: Sentences which are too eonol lcat-e* or are poorly cor * truct ed m/*> be hare * o unc •*r «land. 1. The active part of a sentence Is the verb and the verb can carry only b o much* The subject and verb are strongest when near each other, when the verb Is strong (active) and the subject is clear. 2. Too many qualifying clauses, especially when strung out at the end cf the sentence, may be hard for the reader to relate to the centred idea of the sentence. Of course many such central ideas should be qualified, (e.g. "Prejudice is reinforced when the in­ dividual feels threatened, but this is not a sufficient explanation," or "According to the definition of Sumner, the mores have the force of *sacred* obligation, which will, however, vary from person to person.") Avoid such wishy-washy etuf f as 6Labor unione become strong when they have a clear program of action, which however...according to some writers Is...and I think that., if you look at it objectively..." If the ideas are important and the qualifications necessary for careful evaluation, then they de­ serve clear presentation. 3« Too many qualifying clauses may indicate that you don* t have a good grasp of the subject, or want to hedge on what you say. You may end by saying nothing. U. Punctuation is designed to aid the reader and it is better gov­ erned by clarity than by organized rules. You can often check your punctuation by reading the sentence aloud. I. STATEMENT AND LIMITATION OF SUBJECT: ORCANIZATION: Is it clear to the reader what you mean to write about and how this relates to other aspects of the whole subject? A. Make it clear exactly what you mean to discuss, and what you do not. If you leave out any area of the subject the reader is not sure that you are aware of it. Relate what you say to other important areas, (e.g. "Culture has been divided by Ogburn into material and nonmaterial; I will dl8cus8 what I think is the most important part of non-material culture, that is A...") B. Usually a good paper will limit the subject, relate itself briefly to the shole subject, generalize, give examples to illustrate or present the logical steps which lead to the generalisation; it will then conclude in some fashion, by summary, by suggesting solutions based on the argument, by statement of personal conclusions or ap­ plications, etc. C. But organization is determined by the subject matter, not by a set pattern. 7U Till. VAIHE JUDGMENTS! Does the writer go beyond the evidence to preeent hie personal views? Is he aware that he is doing this? A* The value judgments of the writer are useful in their place, but they should not parade as fact or objective argument, B, It is difficult to eliminate value judgments from the social sci­ ences, but when they are made they should be made explicit. It is best to stats them early b o that the reader can take them into ac­ count. (e,g, "Because I Relieve that Fraternities are democratic in their operation my discussion of them will be,.,") C, The total system of values within which the writer operates is his frame of reference. The reader must never be left in doubt about this frame of reference, (e.g. "Assuming Marxian dialectic it is to be expected that present class lines will,.."} D, The common words of subjective values are adjectives, not those which attempt to describe objectively (brown, small, etc,) but those which comment (good, valuable, cultured, primitive, etc.). The latter tell you more about the attitude of the writer than about the thing itself, S. The most dangerous value judgments are those not stated but as­ sumed as if they were objective fact, (e.g, "Since the American way of life is the one which gives people the greatest freedom, then,..," or "The law of supply and demand regulates competition and so government control is,..") 75 IV, Training of teacher JM to Prepare Him to Teach Two Sect long In This Experiment: It Is not a fair test of the teaching methods which form the exper­ imental variables to consider only the results obtained by a teacher soecifically trained in the teaching of communication skills. The first pair of sections was taught by a communication skills teacher with 10 years of experience and with the added advantage of having prepared the experiment. It was decided therefore that a teacher without this background, trained primarily in sociology, should take two sections to test whether these methods can be efficiently taught to content teachers, and whether they will work for such teachers. JM was chosen, primarily because he was the only other teacher teach­ ing two sections; however, the fact that he had a limited teaching exper­ ience (three and a half years as a graduate teaching assistant) was taken into account since it was felt that his teaching would not be too rigid and that he would be better able to adapt to a new method. JM had completed the course work for the Ph. D. in sociology at the University of Wisconsin but had no more than the average qualifications sb a teacher of communication skills. Like many sociologists he considers lftiiguage as an important area in the field of sociology and he was aware of the problems of clear communication, although he had few definite ideas about what to do about them. The general emphasis on writing was therefore received sympathetically by him, althou^L he had some doubts about the feasibility of effectively teaching writing skills within the framework of the course. 76 It was decided that 10 hours of training, including reading, would "be a reasonable compromise between a full program of indoctrination and a too brief general discussion. The first step in this program was a two hour in­ troduction to the purposes of the experiment, the method and the general frame of reference, Uien a list of suggested readings was given JM which would present the major areas discussed in Chapter U above: A. Flesch, Rudolf, The Art of Plain Talk, Harper, New York, I9U6. Especially pp. 66-80. B, Crowder, Norman, "Speculations on Methodology in the Social Sci­ ences BTC, hi 2U1-57 (Summer 19^7)* C, Fries, George, Teaching of English, George Wahr, Ann Arbor, Mich., I9U9. D. Getting Your Ideas Across Through Writing, Training Manual no. 7, Federal Security Agency, Government Printing Office, Washington, 0. C. , n« d • X. Hall, Robert, Leave Your Language Alone, Linguistica, Ithaca, New York, 1950. F.Hayakawa, S.I., Language in Action. Harcourt-Brace, New York, I9U3. G. Lee, Dorothy D., "A Primitive System of Values," Philosophy of Sci­ ence 7: 355-65 (191+0). H. Malinowski, Branislaw, "The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Lan­ guages," appendix to Ogden, C,K and Richards, I.A., The Meaning of Meaning. Harcourt-Brace, New York, 19^3• I* Pooley, Robert, Teaching English Usage. D. Appleton-Century, New York, 19U6. J. Whorf, Benjamin L., "Science and Linguistics," Technology Review UL: 229- 31, 2U7—8 (19*J0 ). It was not expected that JM would read completely all of these ref­ erences since among them there is some over-lapping; actually he was already familiar with Hayakawa, Malinowski and Whorf, and read parts of Flesch, Lee, and Getting Your Ideas Across through Writing as well as a preliminary 77 UO page outline of the frame of reference of this study. The approach of Crowder, also. Is traditional enough to he familiar to him although he had not read the selection. It is probable that any teacher of sociology would be familiar with items B, P, 0, H, and J, or similar material; nothing was put into the suggested list from George Mead, Piaget or Sapir since these are standard background for th<> .wo rage person trained in sociology and anthropology. It was estimated that four or five hours of reading would suffice and JM did this amount of reading. Most social scientists are concerned with language as a form of be­ havior and would not find the suggested reading too far removed from their professional interests. JM found the reading of interest to him as a so­ ciologist, although he was critical of Following the reading an hour was some of the points of view. spent, with the writer tying to­ gether some of the ideas and studying their implications for the experi­ ment; this was followed throughout the term by shorter discussions of par­ ticular problems, generally related to the interpretation of items on the Writing Scale, The details of this briefing need not be discussed here since they depend on the background and interests of a particular teacher; the gen­ eral content has been suggested in earlier chapters. 78 V. Teaching Method Used. In Sect long Taught by J M : lfce teaching method used by JM was substantially the same as that of HE. There was an attempt to motivate and orient students in the experi­ mental section early in the coarse; a variety of good writing models was introduced; seven written assignments (including the pre- and post-written tests) were made and these were rated on the Scale; the Guide was used as the reference point for the comments on the Scale; there was no discussion of skills except for an introduction to the use of the Scale and Guide and when students raised questions about specific problems d^iring the term; students rewrote pApers which fell below the C level; one paper was ex­ changed, students marking each other's papers after a brief discussion of how they should be rated; there wa3 a follow-up discussion of papers to point out weaknesses in content and how the content was affected by poor writing; use of linguistic material about language was kept as a constant, being given to both sections. About one hour was spent during the term in the teaching of skills; the only substantial difference between the method of EH and that of JM was that JM did not precede each written exercise by a brief discussion of the probable problems to be faced on that assignment. The following table indicates the distribution of written and other tests for the control and experimental sections: Control; ______ ____________________ Experimental:___________ Week 1.: Objective pre-test. Week 2i JO minute written test on choice of two questions. Written pre­ test; same questions used by HE. The same. The same, 79 Control: Experimental:________________ Week 3 20 minute discussion of Scale and Guide, their purpose and the alms of the course in writing. Week U : 30 minute oral quiz. 30 minute written exorcise; write on any phase of the process of development of the self. Week 5 : Discussion of Groan'a Polish Family. 15 minute written exercise; eval­ uate Green'8 article. Week 6 : Mid-term objective examination. Nothing. Week 7 : Oral quiz, based on problems of stratification 30 minute written exercise, choice of one question: ▲. Discuss social stratification in terms of your home community. B. Discuss the assoclatlonal so­ ciety and the rise of stratifi­ cation. Week 8 30 minute written exercise, choice of one question: A. Why are ethnic groups not fully integrated into the system of social classes? B. What is the functional value of "survivals" in as30ciattonal groupings? Week 9 : Oral quiz over institutions Outside of class write on four types of institutions in terms of societal types and social strata. Final: Objective post-test. The same. Written post-test, choice of one question: Discuss: Written post-teat, choice of one question: Discuss: A. "Institutions pattern the activity of human beings in such a way as to assist individuals in realizing the values they have taken over from the culture and at the same time to make it possible for the functional needs of society to be met." A. "3ocial disorganization is not necessarily a corollary of social organization, but it does appear to be an inevita­ ble accompaniment of social change.* SO __________ Control:__________________________ Experimen tal:______________ B. "Although there le a close re 1a — tion between personal and social disorganisation, the former is not invariably a reflection of the latter, and social disorgan­ ization is not simply personali­ ty disorganization multiplied many times." B* T o each own the serve lte functional needs type of society has its Institutions thich shape activities of its members." The purpose of presenting this brief account of the teaching pattern of the sections taught by JM is to show that the same general method is not restrictive in the sense that the individual teacher cannot stress the values and material he wants to. Using this method the two teachers wore free to organize their courses as they chose, with the slight restriction imposed by the emphasis on writing; actually the most important restric­ tions imposed were those of the mechanics of the experiment, not of the method. In actual use, outside of the experimental situation, Buch items as the pre- and post-tests would not be prosent. JM reported that he did not feel limited by the method, thAt he was able to organize and teach the course protty much as he wished. 81 CHAPTER SEVEN MEASURES TO BE USED: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY I. The Writing Rating Scale: The Writing Sating Scale was prepared on the basis of actual writing weaknesses found In orer a thousand papers written for courses In sociol­ ogy and anthropology at Michigan State College during the year I95O-5I. These courses represented all grade levels except Freshmen. Hie method of critical incidence, counting af all mistakes in specified categories, was found to be only indicative, not to be relied on statistically since many types of mistakes fit into several categories; these categories will vary from rater to rater. For example, a mistake in the use of a comma might be categorised "under punctuation, mechanics, sentence structure, clarity, etc. It is obvious that the frame of reference sets the categories. The discussion of the present frame of reference, for example, has stressed the whole rather than the parts, has a complete schema for conceptualiza­ tion, and is non-prescriptive in mechanics. Even within such a frame of reference it is impossible to get statistically accurate results; how­ ever, the most common types of mistakes and weaknesses found in the pa­ pers read were the improper use of antecedents, vagueness, use of jargon, lack of example, inadequate understanding of conceptualization and defi­ nition, sentence structure too involved for clarity or too simple for proper subordination of ideas, lack of clear statement and limitation of subject-matter, poor organization including poor transition, lack of 82 summary and conclusion, value judgments, failure to separate opinion from fact, and spelling ('both of simple words like to-too-two and there-theirthey,re, and of more difficult words.) Because of the need for a short scale these items were combined in a pattern which seemed, on the basis of the material at hand, to offer the most. Spelling was omitted since it was felt that it could not be tau^it within the framework of the course and because it is easily checked on the papers themselves. Writing rating scales of various types were studied, for example, one 128 based on a study at Harvard College, but most of these were too prescrip­ tive, placed too much emphasis on mechanics and the parts, or were too general to fit the present frame of reference. None of them was- designed for use in courses in the social sciences. The Scale is not designed to be an additive device, with the sum of the check marks adding up to a total grade; it is a teaching device, not a grading measure, and so there was no real attempt to check its validity and reliability. Six members of the Department of Written and Spoken Eng­ lish were asked to evaluate its validity and all agreed that it was as valid as any other scale and probably more suitable than most for the purpose at hand. The validity depends primarily on the validity of the frame of reference on which it is based, but it can be stated that the categories used, except the three on conceptualisation, are not much different from those used in other scales. 128 A Bullstin o n the Use of Bigllsh in Examinations by Students in Harvard College, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1939* 83 The reliability of the scale would depend on its continued use and on constant study of the frame of reference. The two members of the Department of Written and Spoken English who reAd all pro- and post-written tests were selected because they have ranked about the average among the members of the department (on the basis of yearly studies) in the rating of themes; neither is a faddist in writing. 123 Yor these reasons their comments on the Scale are interesting: Rater TKt In general, the rating scale was easy for me to use in all items except the three under conceptualization. I could keep the other items clearly in mind as I read each paper, but for these three items I had constantly to refer back to the text. I was less sure of my ratings on these items than on any of the others. Part of the difficulty, I believe, stemmed from the fact that our rating of conceptualization was rather snecific, or detailed, where­ as the other points required a generalized rating, I should say that the scale would be improved by equalizing the amount of abstraction for each item, I liked the "No Application" category for certain items, namely U, 7 . 8. 7or some items, such as 5 » there was little or no tendency ever to use the plua-plus rating. In all, I would have felt my ratings were more meaningful and accu­ rate if the rAting scale had had about thirty items rather than ei®£it. As it was I had to consider the thirty-four specific writing characteristics even though there was some grouping of them. •Rie reading of these papers impressed me with the importance of spelling and penmanship, 'faults in these two items invariably low­ ered my estimate of the paper. Rater M T t On the whole I found all the items except the two parts of 6 , on sentence structure, easy to use. These two tend to overlap. The second, on too involved sentences, is too inclusive. lP^ F . 65. 7 possibly could hav© an A and a B: statement and limitation as A; and organisation as B. Items 3 and 7 are very good (Choica of words...: Organization...) I believe there should be six possibilities, the five you have and a neutral point between the plus and minus. Teacher J M : The most important comments on the Scale came from JM after he had used the Scale for the whole term; since he was not specifically trained in the teaching of skills, beyond the 10 hours of instruction discussed above, he more clearly represents the content teacher for whom the Scale was designed: The Scale was not too difficult to use to carry through the objects of the experiment. Some breakdowns were harder to make than others; some seem to overlap, e.g. U and 7 (Conceptualization and statement and limitation of subject). Students understood the Scale and Guide. I spent little office time in explaining then. The Scale made it possible to grade a batch of papers in aboul two hours (about Uo papers). The conclusions to be drawn from the above comments is that the Scale has some validity for the use to which it was p\it. Its reliability remains a matter of the experience of the user in its use. The use of the Scale to test part of the hypothesis that ’•This training will improve the student's writing skills in certs.in specific areas of writing," will be treated as indicative only and not as if the validity and reliability had been fully established. 85 II. Total Writing Grades: The method of getting the total writing grade for the pre- and post-written tests is that of two rater agreement or third rater, a sys­ tem used hy the Department of Written and Spoken English and approved "by the Board of Examiners. For the purposes of this experiment the grades of each of two raters were added if they fell within a range of three points. The range of points was from 7 (Aifry to -5 (F) and the limit of three. noin*, i indicates that the grades were less than a letter different, e«g« 0- to G+, or C to B-, hut not C~ to B- or C to B. Where the *:vrc raters were more than three points apart the papers were read hy a third rater and the three grades averaged. The Board of Examiners has made informal checks each year for sever­ al years and has found that two raters sigree within these limits from 70 to 90 per cent of the time, hut that a third rater brought at least two of the ratings within the limits at least 95 97 per cent of the time. With the use of selected raters, chosen to eliminate those at the ex­ tremes, the agreement ie much higher. In the present study the three raters used were selected "because they represented about the average of the Department of Written and Spo­ ken English. Twenty— six per cent of the papers got the same grade from two raters, 57 P er cent varied one point and 9 per cent varied two points. Lesp than 1.9 per cent varied more than three points. The total of 9?»3 per cent of grades within the limits indicates that the method is valid, that two graders are fairly consistent; where they are not, the third tends to equalize the differences. Orly one paper out of PfO 86 graded found the third rater in any real disagreement with both previous ratere (grades of D. C, and B). The reliability of grades for writing is not commonly checked, the consensus being that neither reliability or validity can be determined absolutely for such measures. However, it is agreed that reliability is dependent on the experience of the raters^ in this experiment they had from 8 to lU years of experience in grading themes. An effort was made to assure uniform conditions of grading, with each rater given papers in pairs, one pre— and one post-written test for each student (adth the order reversed at random): ratere were instructed to grade not less than 10 or more than 20 papers at one time. These total writing grades were used to test the first part of the hypothesis that "This training will improve the student*s ability to com­ municate in writing", and the material was treated statistically as if the method were reliable and valid. «7 III. Q~b.jectl.ve Pre- and Poet-Test In Sociology; A. Selection of questions: Wte questions for the pre- and post-test In sociology were se­ lected from the following sources: 1. 60 questions from end-term examinations in Soc. 201 used by 130 one member of the Sociology Department, Fall and Winter terms I95O-5I. 2 . 13 questions from mid- and end-term examinations used by a 131 second member of the department. Fall and Winter terms 1950-51. 3. 39 questions based directly on the text and used in the endterm examination by the writer, Winter term 1950-51* U. 18 questions stressing language (not skills), used by the writer during the same term, based on the text and on Flesch, Fries, Kayakawa, and Pooley. These qxiestions were divided into two tests. Form A and Font B, with 57 questions In each plus 18 questions on language common to both. These questions were given to 170 students In four sections of Soc. 201 as part of the final examination dxirlng the Winter term of 1950-51* al­ ternate students taking alternate forms. An item analysis was made, com­ paring the top and bottom quartiles for each item. Chi Square was used to choose the valid items. 130 Dr. John Useem, Dept, of Sociology and Anthropology. Dr. John Thaden, Dept, of Sociology and Anthropology. Cf. Chapter h. gg 133 The final test Included: 1. 32 items with a P of less than .02 (2, 23. 2U. 26, 27 . ?9, 31-37.U6-Ug. 51, 52, 3» 5* 8-10, 15, 16, 5U. 55, 57, 55, 60, 62. 6U). 2. U additional items with a P of less than .0?, rewritten by HH and JM (21, ?g, Uq, 53). 3. 9 discussed by items with a P ofless than .10 but more than .0 5, carefully HH and JM for validity (11, 18-20, 22, 27, 35, 50, U. 12 items with a fullydiscussed by HH and JM 56). P of less than .50 but more than .10, care­ for validity (1, U, 6, 7, 12, 13, 25, Uo, 59. 61. 65). 5« U by HH items with a and JM (lU, 17, Ul, P ofless than .60 but more than .20, rewritten 63). 6 . lU new qxiestions written by JM and approved by HH (U2-U5 , 66-75). The total was 75 questions, U5 T-F and 30 multiple choice. B. Validity: The validity of the items was thus check-ed in two ways: 1. Face validity: All questions were accepted by at least two teachers in the course, and 53 out of 75 by three teachers (not includ­ ing 8 accepted by three teachers but slightly rewritten). All but lU had been used in earlier tests. Including the 8 rewritten. 133 Cf. Appendix C. 89 2. I tea analysis: By item analysis of the results of Form A and Form B, based on a comparison of the top and bottom quartiles, 32 had a P of less than .02 (plus U which were rewritten). Nine additional items had a P of lesB than .10 and more than .05. These items would seem to be vslid. C. Rellabillty; No extensive measures were made to determine the reliability of the test.. However, all but lU of the items plus 8 rewritten ones had been used on the trial Form A and Form B tests; these tests were given to 170 students in four sections and give means within one point of each other and almost identical standard deviations. For these items, then, the spllt-halves method seems to indicate reliability on the experimental forms. In addition the split-h&lves method of determining reliability was used on the objective post-test for the two sections taught by HH. The probability that the difference between odd and even questions is due to anything but chance is less than .50 but greater than .Uo (using Chi Square). Taking the above indications into account it can be said that there is no evidence that the Items are not reliable. 90 CHAPTER EIGHT PRESENTATION OF TEE DATA The data will "be presented In three sections, the first giving the results of the sections taught by HH, the second the results of the sec­ tions taught by JW, and the third a summary of case studies made to sug­ gest some of the probable causes of individual differences In perform­ ance, The data from the sections taught by HH and from those taught by JM will be kept separate except for general conclusions in the next chap­ ter. This study is not concerned with a comparison of the effectiveness of the two teachers, except very generally. I. Sections taught by H E : A. General writing Improvement: The first part of the hypothesis is: This training will improve the students ability to communicate in writing. The data for this part of the study are drawn from the pre- and oost— written tests, graded according to the method described in the last chapter. The letter trades were giver, a numerical rating with a range for the combined scores of two raters of from plus lU to minus 10 ( A h * f to F F). It was decided to test the results in two ways, by comparing the dis­ tribution of numerical scores for the post— test alone, and by comparing the distribution of increase (or decrease) from the pre— to the post— test. On the post-test the following results were obtained: (Table I). 91 k 92 The mean for the control section was -.18 (belo* a C C Grade), that for the experimental section of 2.7 (at the 0+ B- leTel), a difference in menus of 2 ,88. The standard deviations were about the same. The standard error of the mean difference (Smd) was .85U, giving a **t*» of 3.U. At 60 degrees of freedom the probability that this is due to chance is less than .01 and the difference in favor of the experimental section is vorv sig13U nificant. Since the results of the pre-written test were not identical, al­ though close, for both sections a second type of evaluation was made, a coirparison of the increase or decrease from the pre- to the post-test. (Table IIJ, The mean for the control section was -.17. that for the experi­ mental 2.^5 . a difference in favor of the experimental section of 2.6? (more than a plus sign). The standard deviation for the two sections was about the same. The standard error of the mean difference was .7*+!, giv­ ing a w tM of 3.5. At 60 degrees of freedom the probability that this dif­ ference is due to chance is less than .01 and the difference in the experimental section is very sign!ficant. favor of B. Specific writing skills: The second part of the hypothesis is: This training will improve the student*s writing skills in certain specific areas of writing. areas are defined on the Writing Rating Scale as These follows: 3. Choice of words, specificity, simplicity, avoids jargon, etc. U. A. Conceptualization: functional, operational, avoids is as equation, application by example, etc. I?4 « t1* computed according to Allen Edwards, op. clt.. Chapter 8. 13 TABL3 II r- I S T P .l Jo T Iv / .i OF INCR^ASF Ai : e r s ra; i n c r e a s e or e c r e a s e 1 - n l u s o r m i n u s f i n f o r er.cn o f two r; t e r s . P'-re y" ittckinf in nunborinp wiuvi raster! 1 checked n^re for microfilming. UNIVFR.SITY MI CpnKI U \ t: 9& VI TAJBLii V II D I S T F I H U T I C N GZ- SCi h ' S OH 3; P O S T - T W S T IN S O C I O L O G Y F O R oONIPOL jiNL jiLO’.0F^ ‘: a F/-.L SPOT! CNS TAUGHT hY HH. ’U_ • l 26 1 27 0 30 0 31 0 32 0 33 o 36 1 35 2 36 0 37 1 33 2 39 2 60 0 61 2 62 1 63 1 66 3 65 2 6? 2 68 1 69 0 50 1 51 1 5° 2 53 0 56 0 55 1 5 9 ................. . 1 Tot.-.l: 29 Me;u. SO ^ ~md T df. f 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 o 2 0 n 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 33 . 6 1 .7 6 7.36 6 2 .1? 0 .62 V ^ 2. 20 60 r > - 10 \ . c ’O i : I. ' IN SCoEiciS F R O L T n 2 P R 6 P O L T - T L S T IN S C C I O L O g T F O R CON.POL .l’vNL jiiAF- ,I P L a TAN SLC'i.T w N S TAUGHT ■Y HH. TO •- C VO . -3 -6 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 16 15 lo 17 10 19 21 22 23 26 26 27 0;*6 31 32 33 39. To 1; 1: Me?>n SD S , na T df. i CoV.T 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 6 1 1 1 2 0 0 r w 0 3" w (j 2 0 0 29 lo, 9. •1: c 0 0 1 2 n 1 0 3 1 2 1 0 2 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 c 1 1 2 1 _1 ~3j 0 lei . 00 j ;j •"j- 2 .21' .ole oO 1> .1- 99 Much more important is the comparison of the increases from the ob­ jective pre-test to the post-test. Here we find that the experimental sec­ tion had a higher mean, 1? to lo.?, and a smaller standard deviation, K.93 to 9*^0» representing a smaller range of 5 to 39 as compared to -8 to 3? for ^be control section. The standard error of the mean difference was ?.2l, which gives a M t* of .313. At 60 degrees of freedom the proba­ bility that this is due to chance is greater than .10 and the difference is not significant at the .05 level of confidence chosen for this thesis. (Table VTl). A third comparison was made, of the distribution of the content grades on the written post-test. Here again the mean for the experimental group was higher. 1.73 to 1.5? (1 equals Of, ? equals B-, etc.), with a smaller standard deviation, 1.5^ to 1.6l. The standard error of the mean difference Is .U09 which gives a "tM of .516. At 60 degrees of freedom the probability is greater than .10 that this is due to chance and the difference is not significant at the level of confidence chosen for this thesis (Table VIII), Considering the fact that the control group started with a higher mean on the objective pre-test, the three measures favor the experimental group, although not significantly. D. Student attitude toward the course; The fourth oart of the hypothesis is: This train in.? will improve the student*s attitudes toward the course. The measure used here was the 135 Teacher Evaluation Sheet in use throughout the college* The distribution i TEACHER EVALUATION SHEET MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE M a jo r _______________________ ,Sex ___________________________ C l a s s ___________________________ G r a d e p o in t a v e r a g e -------------------------------------------------- . DIRECTIONS: It is the desire of your in s tru c to r to ach ie v e th e best possible in s tru c tio n in this ccurse. T o h e lp a ccom plish th e pu rp ose, this e v a lu a tio n sh e e t w as d ev ised to o b ta in a s y s te m a tic poll of s t u d e n t o pinion. C a re fu lly con sider each q u estio n, t h e n record yo ur ju d g m e n t by en circlin g one of th e le tte rs A, B, C, D. E. f< r each item . A blan k space has been p rov id e d a t th e end for ad d in g c o m m e n ts you wish to make. D B 1 W E R E IM P O R T A N T O B JE C T IV E S M ET? T h e course is an im p o rta n t c o n tr ib u tio n to m y college e d u ­ cation 2 D O E S I N S T R U C T O R 'S P R E S E N T A T IO N O F SU BJEC T M A TTER E N H A N C E LEA R N IN G ? P re s e n ta tio n very m e a n in g fu l and facilitates learnin g 3 IS I N S T R U C T O R ' S S P E E C H E F F E C T IV E ? In s tru c to r's s p eak in g skill co n ­ c e n tr a te s m y a tt e n ti o n on s u b ­ ject 4. HOW W ELL DOES T H E IN S T R U C T O R W ORK W IT H S T U D E N T S? I feel welcome to seek e x tra h e l p as often as n eeded 5. D OES T H E IN S T R U C T O R S T IM U L A T E IN D E P E N D ­ E N T T H IN K IN G ? Instructor b. DO G RA D IN G P R O ­ C E D U R E S G IV E V A L ID R E S U L T S ? In s tru c to r's e s t im a te of m y over all a c c o m p lis h m e n t has been q u i t e ac c u rate to d a te 7 HOW DOES T H IS IN S T R U C T O R RANK W IT H O T H E R S YOU HAV E HAD? O ne of the b est in s tru cto rs have ev er had A B D P re s e n ta ti o n n o t u n u s u a l l y good or bad, a b o u t a v e ra g e B A A B D c c C S atisfacto ry or a b o u t av erag e E E I would avoid asking th is in ­ s tru c to r f o r extra h e lp unless abso lutely necessary D E I seldom do m o re th a n rote m e m o ry work and c ra m m in g D In s tru c to r's e s t im a te of my ac­ c o m p lis h m e n t is of average ac­ curacy B I c confusing: S p eech usually d istractin g, co n ­ c e n tr a tio n very d ifficult In general. I do only th e usual t h i n k i n g involved in the as­ sign m ents B A D I feel h e s ita n t to ask for extra h elp c o n tin u a lly in spires me to ex tra effort and th o u g h t beyond course r e q u i re m e n ts A C E P re s e n ta tio n often seldom helpfui S p eec h so m e tim es in v ites a t­ te n t io n on sp e a k e r r a t h e r th a n sub ject B A COM M ENTS: C E T h i s c o u r s e d o e s n ’t w o rth w hile to m e C o n tr i b u te s a b o u t as m u c h as th e av erag e college course E I feel t h a t th e in s tru c to r's e s ti­ m a t e is q u ite in a c c u ra te D E O ne of th e po orest in s tru c to rs I have e v e r had 102 is given in Table IX, with the meane for each section and the differences between means. Using Chi Square it is found that none of the differences are significant at the .05 level of confidence. Items 1 and ? favor the control group very slightly and all other items favor the experimental, with item U having a P of less than .50 and more than .30, the most nearly significant item of the group. It can be concluded that the differences between the evaluations of the two sections tend to favor the experimen­ tal section but that these differences are not significant at the .05 lev­ el of confidence for any part. In addition to checking the items on the Teacher Evaluation Sheet students were asked to comment on the course, especially to answer the questions: 1. What if anything has this course done to help you communicate better your knowledge of sociology? 2. Has this helped or hindered your grasp of sociology? The answers do not lend themselves to exact tabulation; the follow­ ing general comments and conclusions must suffice: Experimental section: (37 cases) Twenty-seven students stated that they thought the emphasis on writing skills was of value to them, although the range of enthusiasm is great; two students had doubts and ? thou^it the time wasted. Ten students com­ mented that the teaching of skills and the practice in writing heloed them to grasp and use the subject matter better; two doubted if this were so. Twelve students thought the same emphasis should be made in most courses; five were d--, ♦ful and P thought it- could not be done. 103 Scattered favorable comments deAlt with specific skills learned, especially organization and the use of example, while U praised the Scale and Guide. Four thought there was "too much emphasis on writing," although all of these favored some attention to writing problems. One student felt that the aims of the course were confused because of two types of emphasis. The comments about the teacher and course are about what would be expected from the check marks on the Teacher Rating Sheet. The only im­ portant additional comment was that made by several students that the teacher expressed hie own biases too often. It is generally agreed that teacher rating sheets must be taken with some caution since there is a tendency to over-rate, the so-called "halo" effect. It is probable thAt in the present case liking for the teacher may have had some effect on the responses about the teaching of skills. Control section: (31 cases) It is obvloua that the answers from the control section about the learning of skills cannot parallel those of the experimental section. Ac­ tually les3 were able to answer at all. Seven thought they could communicate well enough for the purposes of answering essay questions in sociology, but 8 felt that they had diffi­ culty making themselves understood; three of the latter felt that there should be more writing in the course. In addition to the general comments about writing, U thought they could not orgsuilze their answers, 2 found it hard to be concrete and to /rive good examples, 2 felt that they could handle generalizations, 1 stated that he did not know how to not properly limit 10U his subject, and 1 could not understand or use the functional approach to concepts. The general comments about the course and teacher were for the most oart favorable. Summary of student comments: The big difference between the two sections is that the control group felt less confident in specific skills, although ofal.v half of those answering stated a need for writing instruction; the experimental section, on the other hand, was much Iobs specific in stating needs but almost 90 per cent of those answering responded that they felt they needed additional work in writing (PJ out of 31). 105 II. Sections taught “by J M : The same set of comparisons wore made for tne sections taught "by JM. A. General writing Improvement: General writing improvement wan tested in two ways, by comparing the distribution of numerical scores for the written post-test alone, and by comparing the distribution of increase (or decrease) from the pre- to the post-teBt. On the written post— test the mean for the control group was 1.? below that for the experimental, .S3 (C Of) to 2.03 (C+ Ct). The standard error of the mean difference was .JOk, giving a "tH of 1.305* At 67 de­ grees of freedom the probability that this is due to chance is greater than .05 hut less than .10, in favor of the experimental group. We may conclude that the difference approaches the level of confidence set for this study, but does not reach it (Table X.). The mean increase for the control section from the pro- to the post-test was 1.0 3 , that for the experimental section 1 .^4, a difference of .Ul in favor of the experimental section. The standard deviations for the two sections were about the same. The standard error of the mean difference was 1.0U, giving a "tw of *39^» At 67 degrees of freedom the probability that this difference is due to chance is more than .10, and the difference is not significant at the .05 level of confidence set for this study (Table XI). B. Specific writing skills: The skills to be measured are those defined on the Writing Eating 136 Scale.'The experimental section taught by JM showed more in.rroveniert or 10 f T A -1 2 X. DISTKI GUTIGO OF G-BAKSS OK W7'IT 0:2: FCS2-TFST F g F CGK.RCL a / : : s x f s p i m f o t a l s - c t i g i :s t a u g h t b y j m . - o r e f>n;i l e t Le r . r r d e . y O C o n tro l. Fre Fos t 0 1 1 0 '••V B / 7 3 6 5 / o Ji ' C / C —^ C - i. _ c; 3 / -6 1) M 'pn 5p, ------------- ------- - u 7 '•J 0 0 r '\ J O r \ yj 0 1 . ]5 3 O 3 1 3 3 3 7 D o a 1 2 0 1 3 _n 0 0 0 > Cj o 1 1 s'. o 1 0 -1 - 0 o 1 1 0 B - , 0 0 0 1 1 S r.p e rir.ie n t- 1. F re Fo s t 3 a o 1 2 3 2 0 0 l l l K./ V 1 • -1' ' 2. ] 1 • • 4 - S r.d T df P '^ ^ 1 .7 0 5 67 .1 C > F ^ .0 3 2.0 3 .t x° TABL3 XI L'IS TH IB UTI CII OF INCB^AS-' A.OJ F CRjYa SF PP. Oil V;?:ITFX*. PEjO—T S S i TG V.P.ITK- O P C S T - T 2 S T FCF. CuFTFCJ ;• F YXFSF.IMF. TAI S F C i ; ONS T GGv-T ±>Y JM. 10S lees regression thnn the control section on all items. The greatest dif­ ferences were those on items 3» ^ -A-, U C, 6 B, 7. and hut none of the differences is negligible (Tables XII, XIII, XIV). As in the case of the sections taught by HH these conclusions are merely indicative and cannot be statistically tested for validity. C. Grasp of sociology: For the sections taught by JM the mean grade for the objective post-test was almost the same for both, 35» ^ tie control and 3U.6U for the experimental. The standard deviation for the control group was ■'.76 and for the experiments! 7.?0 , representing a range of 9 to 53 and IS to U 9 . The probability that the difference is due to chance is very high (Table XV). Since the control group started with a lower mean on the pre-test and ended with a higher mean on t>.o post-test the above figures are not as revealing as a comparison of the increase from the pre- to the post-test. Here the control section has a higher mean, 9*90 to 7*?2» a difference of The standard deviations arc. almost the same. The standard error of the mean difference is C.3 , which rives a MtB of I.17. At 6? degrees of freedom this gives a probability of more than .1C that the difference is due to chance and the difference is not significant at the .05 level used in this thesis (Table XVI). A comparison of the content scores on the written post-test showed that the groups were about the some. The mean for the control group was 1.3, for the experimental group l.UU. The standard deviations were about t.v c same. T* « standard error of t>~* mean difference war .37?, givirg a *»t* 1.05 T A B U XII INCREASE OR LECREASE FCE -A CE I t p : : on t i-X P. I T I - G RATI AG SOT. I X FROM P E I - TC THE P O S T - REI TTT.9 TEST P \ R THE Co A Tit On SPOTICR taul -. ■.T BY J] _ P i n .R 9-b 3 9 A 3 G 5 6 A B 7 S.. To 3 2 1 0 0 2 2 0 3 1 0 1 2 3 0 3 1 P 3 b o 1 2 2 ._2 c -1 6 T 1 2o tel: 3 c c.-.r-os. crer-se o f 0 1 1 it -. i 2 2 3 b 5 O S i n c e e c.. 2 i c en-;;T ’ er to ir . 19 13 Mi n u s o _ 3 ____ 1 9 3 0 29 1 2 1 1 3 7 c. > 5 3 12 3 6 19 1 1 21 12 166 9 70 3 3 93 r.* t e c 12 18 2b k./ • two 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 _ u 9—o 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 17 read • r s , rlus o r :■;inus s i f_n f o r 1 o — n i n c r e ; se o r < o- cl. o f two r - t e r s , TArLT X I I I I ACE.-. ASE -Jr. TXAS9 FOR P K Z - TO TIG PC S T - 9 P .IT T. . — . - I AT 0.. T.n- »to.x iiv. j m . l i i i j P R O M THE X- ■I T IC E T , E X } n R I M . . . l A 1 SECT - ■- -i T.- uGr.T iJi JM -------F Inn Itf'-o. _ 9 A 3 C c. 6 A B ( 8 _____ * ■ rv_«• • 9-c '" 3 ‘ 9 7 7 1 9 3 9 . _2 2 9 10 1 1 1 0 3 3 . _2 f 3 9 s y 3 2 10 /J 1 13 7 7 3 6 12 13 o 73 0 9 9 10 19 2C 29 19 3 20 130 1 3 9 c 0 3 2 1 1 3 23 Mi n u s 2 3 1 4. 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 i Ji*i. Dii -erencp. 3 4 A B C - 5 6 A B it - 6 .. .16 Ol .37 .06 .39 .00 30 .21 - . • 33 .56 1.36 .02 .69 .24 1.15 .25 .63 .31 .76 1.90 . . .40 .. • Oo .15 .31 .50 I .69 . 46 S i n c e er-ci. ;,-r er is r- to. o; • two re; c r s , ■-n ir ere.- sc or c r e a s e oT 2 is e q u n l to 1 n l u s or ir.inas s.i.-n . o r e.- cl. oi r- ters. de­ two p 11? of ,37?* The probability ia great that ti a difference is due to chance (Table X7II). In measuring the grasp of sociology its objective test favored the control group slightly and the content scores of the written teat favored the experimental groxip, but the differences were not significant. D. Student attitude toward the course: 137 The responses on the Teacher Evaluation Sheet favor the experi­ mental section in every part except item R. At ? degrees of freedom items ?, 3* and 6 give Chi Squares which arc translated into probabilities of less than .10 but more than .05. The other probabilities range between .50 and .30. It can be concluded that none of the items shows significant differences between the control and experimental sections, although three items approach significance (Table XVIII). In addition to the check marks on the Teacher Evaluation Sheet students commented on the course and teacher at the bottom of the sheets. Out of UO individuals, some not commenting, ?R thought the writing instruction and practice helpful, ? were doubtful and 6 thought it not of value (experimental group only). Twenty thought that more writing arid at­ tention to writing mistakes should be a part of all courses, 1 was doubt­ ful and 7 did not think so. Eight specifically stated that they thought the writing instruction had helped them understand the eub.'ect matter of tie covirse better. Three students mentioned specific skills in which they felt they had improved - limitation of subject, concreteness, arid organ­ ization. 115 TAFLR XVII 'ISTRI3FTIC X cf ci: poct-i.': i t f f f t r s ? c .- .c f : f a s i'acf.-iT -/i j m . ccruF'FT o r a ' f s cofff, L j. : b >j:x r-.i :::a l for '■»»- • 1 / r x> 3 2 1 0 1 A O C c D 3 F A _ C 11 o <0, 0 3 3 9 12 5 1 1 ~3 36 l.Fd 1.32 1. 31 3D l.x S rnc. T . 372 d. R TA_:-LR XVIII FI 3 F F I FI .X or .:7..-dFFAFl F C M A F .VF SFol.F.FFS CF FrF. F.-F--.3HZR XVA_.UATlOiJ SH3XT, I F Cl-.C.. oF ? Aiil_ASf **1 Fn Fr_ MXAC. F’CF. F A C a A..F 'IFF. FIF* FFSr-F.'CFS aF A.FFF .OFF'S, F O R JFX.r.CL A..F '•_2-XRI‘-:....FAL SF,'CF _.. AS TAovAnT _5x L te F 1. ~ o ”3 3 V 1C O 3 !U IF Id oo IX s IF IF 13 1~ 7. T C ~r. * roI D . C *. ..3 - s 2, _ 9. o0 3. 3 12 9 12 7 1 p 2 s >F F3 J'*PFF ._R.il 1 ~ "3 '1 3 ii 0 l l J 13 6 /.a v-? a R 1.90 2. i: 3 - ’J3 O*• ' ' '■->, A 2 • “0 JM . Rea:;.. . IF .01 2.31 •7 ^ . 19 2 .F F 3 3. o2 2 . 6? 2? .13 . r3 7 • 1c .d • oF 3. 23 .3. « . ^ lesn -rr erir’er. t'* 1 R c 1C 9 15 33 13 10 3F F, 2. 7-L’-t ' 17 3. '?r ’ 15 10 i• JL ( 1 1 2 1 15 A u.- . . O O 19 -9 t 0 "*v 13 IF 13 33 ^ w r a ter Is 0 3 20 • 9 _■ ' 0 • llU Tfcere were no comments on writing by the control section. Both sections commented on the course in general and on the teacher, and these are about what would be expected from the results of the checks on the Teacher Evaluation Sheet. The chief negative comments referred to organi­ zation of course material, vagueness and lack of specific example, and general failure to grasp the purpose of the course. These perhaps had some effect on the receptivity toward the teaching of 3kilis, and may be diie in part to JW's Interest in and stress upon the theoretical aspects of the course. S. Reactions of JV. to the method of teaching wri ting; Among the important results of any experiment in teaching method are the effects these methods have on the teacher. JM stated that his over-all reaction was favorable, that the frare of reference was not too difficult to grasp, and that the class time spent on the teaching of skills was not excessive. He found the Scale not too difficult to use, and that it became easier os he became more experienced in ite use. Some of the breakdown:*, however, remained more difficult for him than Others, as well as the disdir.ctions between Pltis and Plus—Plus. The use of the Scale made it possi­ ble for him to grade a set of ^0 papers in about two hours: he does not think that this is more than any teacher "should sper.d on any type of ex­ amination. " A year after the experiment he stated thAt the experiment had had a big influence on his teaching; he now gives more short written examina­ tions, ar:d is more consc! ous of good writing in gradi r.g then. The greatest 115 change has come In hie use of examples, the experiment having made him conscious of their importance. He states that he now is also more conccioue of conceptualiaation. His conclxision now is that the method, with variations to fit the needs of individual te c-hers, is sound and that it did, in some dagre®. what it attempted to do. 116 III. Selected Caae Studies: The data ae presented in the above two sections does not indicate why certain students profited by the emphasis on writing while others did not. It is not the ourpose of this thesis to explore fully the causes of success or failure of students but it is important, that some evaluation of individual performance be made. The purpose of the summary of the case studies which follows is to point out some of the possible or probable factors which makre for success or failure of individuals to improve in writing. From this discussion it may be possible to suggest further re­ search, or to point up certain features of the present method which need emphasis or modification. Eight students were selected and interviewed one year after the ex­ periment, during May 195?. This eliminated those who had graduated or left college for some other reason; there seems to be no particular rea­ son for these drop-cuts which might effect the selection, some being drafted, some transfers to other colleges, none who felled to remain in school beceuse of low grades. The eight were from the exoerimental sec­ tion taught by HH and were selected to represent different types of per­ formance: included were ooor students who improved in writing, poor stu­ dents who did not improve, average, and good students who did or did not improve. The case studies were based on the following types of material: A. All college records available through the regietrer's office, grades, test results and other academic performances. 117 B. Records of the counseling services of the college, where these existed, except records whose use was not. permitted (some psychiatric CAse reports). The records used included personality adjustment inventory "blanks, Attitude scales and occupational Interest check lists. C. All records kept by the teacher during the term, including test results, grades, absences, individual comments and office appointments. D. All papers written for the course, with the Writing Rating Scales and rater*s comments. E. Information available to the teacher from sources outside of class, from other teachers or from previous courses. F. Semi— directive interview to determine: 1 . Sociological background, . Educational background, with emphasis on family. including linguistic. ■J. Attitudes toward the experiment, teacher, especially attitudes toward writing methods, etc.; and and its teaching within a sociology course. H. Attitudes in matters such as race, religion, labor, and econo and toward authority, especially in the family and in the classroom. The assumptions were that the attitudes of students in certain areas, race, religion, economics, and family, and general attitudes toward author­ ity might reveal certain rigidities in thinking which might have some ef13* feet on the acceptance of new material or new methods. l"tS? T.W. Adorno, et.al. The Authorl terlan Perp.onalit^, Hamer, New York, 19S0. Some of the assumptions are baBed on a reading of thin hcck. 4 IIP The following summary is not conclusive: the sample Is small, the case studies incomplete in many respects (e.g. no direct effort was made to get attitudes about sex or toward parents, although these seem to be factors in several casses). The following seem to be factors leading to progress or lack of 139 progress in writing in the coxirse: A. Factors leading to progress in writing: 1. Accep tance of authority: Willingness to go along with the gen­ eral aims of the course was expressed by 6 out of 8 interviewed, and is a strong factor in at least U of those. This willingness to conform depends in nart on the novelty of the method or material presented, the less strange the more acceptance. Since 7 of the 8 had had a somewhat similar approach to writing in the basic skills course (Written and Spoken Eng­ lish) the methods and content of the writing instruction was less strange than they might have beer, to a student trained in a different system (e.g. AW who was trained in a prescriptive skills course at another Institution). ?. Feeling of need: Most of the students interviewed felt a need to i.ii'-trove their writing, even before the orientation in the course and the shock, for some, of a low writing grade on early papers. Most came from homes where the use of good English has importance as a means of demonstrating or improving social status. This sense of need had been re­ inforced in some cases by the required skills course, and in about half the cases by professional eoals. The strength of the need varied with the abilities of the individuals and with academic, family, and other pressures: Case studies are in Appendix B. 119 It la not a felt need for Itself, but a means of fulfilling some other need. In ahout 6 out of 8 cases the need was defined more sharply by the orientation of the course, by the strict greying of papers and by the constant emphasis on improvement in writing. 3* Interest in the subject matter: Several of those interviewed indicated that their interest in the subject matter of the course encour­ aged them to do better work in writing. These seemed to sense the close relationship between knowledge and use of sociological material and the ability to read and write. The majority probably did not make this strong a correlation. U. Liking for the teacher: Personal rapport with the teacher was a factor of importance in at least one case, AC, and probably to a lesser degree in several others. 5. Convenience of the teaching devices: The simplicity, explicitness and handiness of the Writing Scale and Writing Guide were men­ tioned by all but ? of those interviewed as contributing to their accept­ ance of the writing goals of the course. £. Liking for essay examinations: Preference for written exami­ nations rather than objective was mentioned by about half of the cases! these expressed the opinion that they could better show what they knew and could make applications of their knowledge through examples which had meaning for them. During the course several came to like the essay type of assignment better. 1?0 S . Factors which hindered progress in wrltlng: 1. Apathy or lack of real incentive to Improve: Lack of interest in sociology wsb mentioned as a factor by at least 3 cases, an arathv which varriec over 'r *•!. •* ting in the course. A* least ? were negative toward the writing although having mors interest in some parts of t^e sub­ ject matter. Usually apathy is couoled with willingness to go along with the objectives of the course as set by the teacher, since this is the easiest response. This combination resulted in a minimum of improvement and probably did little more than make the student more careful in his writ log, ?. Personal problems, a t titudes, blocks, and rigidities; One case, •ID, had so many personal problems that it is difficult to see how he can do anv college work; his resultant rigidities may serve as a protective device which makes this survival possible. In other cases the oroblems, such as that of the girl friend living out of town, the domineering mother, or the broken home, may have had some effect on the success or failure of the student to improve in writing, but most of the problems uncovered probably had little more than a distracting effect. With the exception of two students the blocks formed by rigid attitudes probably were of min­ or im-nortance; these blocks and rigidities mav be part of the pressure toward conformitv and the experimental methods and content were adaobed 1 U0 to the existing cognative structure of the individual, 3* Negative attitudes toward the ter, chsr; In the cases studied the personality of the t eacher seems not to have been a strong factor iuo ~ This interpretab ion was suggested by Dr, William .Mann. 121 la restricting the advancement of students; the strongest negative state­ ment was one of neutrality, from a student who seems to be neutral toward most college work. U. Semi-literacy; One student, AC, was well below college level in linguistic ability and intelligence. While he may hAve made some progress in writing, the exnerimental method was not designed to deal with students with severe mechanical problems. With this exception the linguistic ability of students was not an important factor, since the method took into account individual differences. 5* Anti-writing atmosphere at the college: One individual stated that there was an "anti-writing" atmosphere at Michigan State College, and others would probably agree that the expectations at the college in writing are not high beyond the basic skills course; this is conformity working against the aims of the experiment; the student conforms to the low expec­ tations about writing in the majority of courses. Notes: Two things need to be emphasised: A. None of these factors is "all-determining*’ since there are counter­ pressures. Some students with severe problems did well and some made no advancement. B. Most of the positive and negative factors are conditioned by the individual teacher and his ability to "sell" the communications approach. Better orientation toward the aims of the course might have changed the performance of some students. 17. Summary of Chapter: The summary of the results of this chapter will follow in the next; there they will be drawn together and an attempt made to generalize. 122 CHAPTER HINTS SUMMARY AND COHCLTTSIOITS In the following conclusions An effort ha3 been made to clearly state which are drawn strictly from the data and which go beyond the date. It is assumed that some of the more Important conclusions are, in effect, interpretations cf the results of the testing; these interpreta­ tions draw from the experience And reading which are a pArt of the whole experimental situation. I. General Writing Improvement; The first part of the hypothesis is: This training will improve the student’s ability to communicate in writing. The evidence seems to support this hypothesis; four methods of evaluation were used: A. Comparison of the grad«» on the written post— test favor the exnerimental section tAught by HH over his control at the .01 level of confidence; the differences for the sections taught by B favor the experimental section sufficiently to merit attention, while items U B and 6 A are somewhat less discriminating; these observations hold for the sections taught by JM as well as those taught by HH, and for JM items 3, 7, and 8 also seem to discriminate. (For this section only items will be con­ sidered as M discriminatlug* if they differ by .Uo.) All items on the Scale favored the experimental group taught by JM over his control, and all but two the experimental group taught by HH; the only item in which either control section did better to any degree is item 8 for the section taught by HH. Item 3 seoms to have been little affected by the experimental meth­ ods in the section taught by HH, but does discriminate in favor of the experimental section taught by JM. The difference between the two teach­ ers on this item may have been due to something in their own use of lan­ guage, but probably this Item is too loosely constructed, too abstract, an'* too inclusive. Item 5 seems to have been the least affected by the experiment, the sections taught by HH improving about the same and both sections of JM doing slightly worse on the post- than on the pre-test. JM says that he was not really conscious of antecedents, although he of course understands the problems the;/ present. The difficulty with this item is that there are two types of antecedent mistake, lack of knowledge about or carelessness In the use of antecedents and i \ agreement, and lack of knowledge about l?6 what the Antecedent thing or person really is (e.g. the indefinite "they" may reveal a lack of knowledge about who "they* are). Most mistakes of the first kind are the result of carelessness, since most students have been sufficiently drilled in the matter of agreement. The second mistake should disappear with more specific information. Nothing in the experiment taught the mechanics of agreement and both sections were given the same informa­ tion. The experiment therefore would seem to affect only the care with which students wrote, and this may have caused the slight superiority of both exoerimental groups. It would seem that items U A, ^ B, and k C, on the process of con­ ceptualization, discriminate in favor of the experimental sections. This may be considered as a HroalH learning situation since the approach to conceptualization as here presented was relatively new to most students, although all had had some training in the semantic emphasis of the noninclusive and non-exclu9ive nature of concepts. This pre-training is re­ flected, perhaps, in the fact that item U B, which consists of this se­ mantic emphasis, is the one showing the least difference of the three be­ tween each experimental section ani its control. Of all the ports of th<* Scale the secti c-uo dcrl in.? with conceptualization are the aoi;‘ difficult to tench, but the evidence is that they can he taught and that students will learn to use concerts in a more operational way, And will understand the limitations of the abstractive process. The use of example was in­ creased greatly in the experimental section taught by HH; JM, a year after the experiment, concluded that he did not really make effective use of exerrr.lee in his owr. te« ch ir.g or suffi r '.er i ly emohaei ?.« them in evaluating 127 papers.. One of the important 'by-products of the experiment is the in­ creased use of examples by JM in his teaching after the experiment. The improvement in sentence structure, items 6 A and 6 B, may rep­ resent. some real learning for the experimental groups, but it is probable that most of the improvement is merely a return to exnected levels. There is a tendency for students to write more complex sentences as the subject matter becomes more complex and theoretical. The constant stress on clar­ ity in the experimental sections might have helped to conteract this ten­ dency. The too simple sentence, on the other hand, is probably dependent (except with the rare semi-literate) on weakness in over-all organisation a better grasp of relationships, based on a clear statement of subject and close attention to a frame of reference would encourage better subor­ dination of ideas, better transitions, and fewer choppy sentences. The conclusions to be reached seen; to be that old skills can be re­ gained, much carelessness eliminated, and old skills reinforced by prac­ tice and correction. The gains may not be great. This generalisation would seen: to aoply to mechanical mistakes, the usual grammatical errors ir.clvding tense, antecedents, sentence structure, and punctuation. There is no evidence in this experiment about spelling. The failure of the experimental section taught by HH to do better on item 7 than hie control section ie hare to exolair., sirce the problem of strictly limiting the subject and a clear statement of it was stressed repeatedly. Students had had a good grounding in t M s area in the basic course in communication skills, but there would seen: to be room for imr rover..«=•»•t as thov ar>r ly this training a sreci fi r consent course. The 1?8 gain made by the experimental section taught by JM indicates that these skills can be reinforced; the failure of HH can perhaps be explained in terms of individual weaknesses in his teaching. The experimental method failed for both teachers on item 8, value judgments. This was not a now area for students, but is an area in which they had much room for improvement. Student comments on the teaching of HH indicate that he was guilty of expressing his own biases; perhaps ex­ ample outweighed precept. The answer may lie partly in the types of ques­ tions asked on the pre- and post-tests, the pre-test answer following the book more closely than those of the post-test, or may be due to the in­ creased confidence of students in their knowledge of the subject matter. Whatever the cause, it Is obvious that something beyond the present meth­ od is needed to correct this problem. Hew skills can be taught by th*=> experimental method, although these depend in large part on the teacher*s understanding and practice of them. Those skills most ee.silv taught would seen: to be those most closely re­ lated to the subject, matter, in the social sciences such items as con­ ceptualization, value judgments, frame of reference. Old skills can be reinforced. III. Grasp of Sociology: The third part of the hypothesis to be tested is: This training will improve the student’s grasp of subject matter in the coxtrse. Two types of comparisons were made between experimental and control groups, the first on performance on the objective examinations and the second on the con­ tent. trades on the nost.-wri 11on test. 129 If we consider only the scores on the objective post-test we find that there 1 h no significant difference between control and experimental groups, for either teacher. It is interesting that the range and stand­ ard deviation is greater for the control sections; the experimental meth­ od seems to eliminate extremely low scores, perhaps becaxise the writing assignments forced even the poorest students to deal directly with sub­ ject matter. More important is a comparison of the increase fror. the objective pre- to the post-test.. For the sections taught by HI! the experimental group does better, with a smaller range and standard deviation; tie mean increase for the experimental group was IS to It.? for the control, but this is not significant, at the .05 level of confidence. For the sections taught by JM the control e-roup has the advantage, 9*9 to J , but again the differences are net significant at the .05 level. The only conclusion possible from the above data is that the ex­ periment failed to make any significant difference in the performance on objective tests. Perhaps the added experience in answering objective onestiors on mid-tem. tests gave an advantage to the control groups, but there is no evidence that this is so. The second t.yoe of comparison would seem to favor the experimental sections. Since writing and content arc bound together on essay examina­ tions wp might assume that the exuerimental groups wo\;ld show more skill in answering such questions. On the content grades for the written posttest. both experimental sections did better than their corrrl ementa.ry sec­ tions. but the difference is not signl f ic-ant. at the .0^ level. 130 There is no evidence that the experimental method had any effect on the performance on objective examinations, and there is no significant difference in performance on the content of written tests, although these do favor the experimental group. IV. Student Attitude Toward the Course: The fourth part of the hypothesis is: This training will improve the student»s attitude toward the course. The measure used to test this part lU? was the Teacher Evaluation Sheet. None of the differences between the sections taught "by HH or those taught by JM are significant, although they favor the experimental sections; for the sections taught by JM the results favor the exoerimental section on items ?, 3» *^*1 6, at the .10 level, and thus approach significance. The conclusion to be drawn from there date., and supported in pa.rt by the case studies, is tlat the experimental method may have made the stu­ dents like the course better, since the differences tend in the same di­ rection, but there is not sufficient evidence that this is not due to chance. Student comr.ents or: the bottom of the Teacher Evaluation Sheet surmort the same conclusion. Actually the experience with studies such as this have often shown that new methods and added worb in writing make the student negative to­ ward the course. The case studies show how this is possible, but they also show that the negative bias is ccnteracted in the present experi­ ment; there is no evidence that the negative attitude which the experi­ ment. did raise was an important factor, oxcart with a few individuals, 131 and the moat important conclusion about this part of the hypothesis is that there is no evidence that the experiment caused negative reactions among students. V . Senera1 Conclusions: The following general conclusions are drawn more from the experience in setting up and carrying through the experiment, and from the reading a n d discussion which preceded it. They cannot be accepted as conclusive but only as indicating some of the possible conclusions which might lead to further elaboration and validation. It is obvious from the case studies and student comments on the Teacher Evaluation Sheets, as well as from the impressions of the two participating teachers, that one of the important factors in the develop­ ment of writing Bkills in a content course is the orientation of students toward the Tmrposes of this training. This briefing must first make the goals of better writing seem to be a natural and expected nart of the content coxirse, since a big motivating factor is the student’s desire to concern, '’’be cenbination of skills and content must never be approached as something strange, but as a natural thing. Perhaps the most important part of this orientation is the demonstration that good communication is » key to better understanding and application of subject matter. Orientation is first of all an attitude on the part of the teacher; if he at all times recognizes the values he is teaching and makes a con­ stant effort to demonstrate the skills in hiw own speaking and writing, most students will tend to re along. The negative force of the enforced rewriting o^ all papers which fall below a certain standard is valuable. 13? especially n; first; fewer students fall below the expected standard in later paoers. This implies a certain minimum standard; obviously, if the standard is raised the number of rewritten papers will increase and so some students will never write an acceptable paper. Higher standards woxild be desirable if there were more time available for instruction in writing and for grading of papers, but the only standard possible under normal teaching conditions in content- courses is that all papers express the subject matter clearly, precisely, and accurately; it can only be hoped that some students will go beyond to better writing. Other parts of the orientation should stress the relation of clear communication to grades, to the professional goals of students and to the personal expectations of the teacher. The experience of the teacher in his own writing gives an opportunity for an important, point to be made, that all writers face most of the same problems and that the minimum standards are merely the starting point for a continuing development. Closely related to the problem of orientation and motivation is that of setting a usable and explicit frame of reference; this includes the recognition of good models, of as great a variety as the course permits, including sociological material which appears in newspapers, in popular magazines such as Life and Lock:, in "quality" magazines such as Harper13, and the reports of agencies and other organizations interested in socio­ logical problems. The important stress is that all writing is for a pur­ pose, aimed at a particular set of readers, and that this purpose deter­ mines in large part the level of usage and style. Academic writing is only one of many t.-'pes of wri tin*: an^ should he recognized as suitable i 133 for only limited purposes. The standard for student writing cannot he based on Journal and other orofessional standards, hut should he keyed more to the level of clear report writing. The standard can, in the final analysis, he set only hy the individual teacher, hut he must have some definite guide such as the Scale and Guide used in this experiment. The frs-me of reference includes alBO a clear statement of the ex­ pectations of the teacher; this implies in the present problem a simple, efficient, and explicit explanation of the teaching devices used. The Scale and Guide aim at such efficient presentation of the major areas of concern in a specific course. There is no evidence that they are usable in other courses, although ^robably they are readily adaptable for other disciplines in the social sciences. Such devices must he related to the experience of students; in the present ontdy they are closely related to the earlier training of students in the required course in crnimuniea+ion shills, even new material such as that on conceptualization growing out of this experience. If the students were from a more prescriptive English background, or trained in a "liter­ ary" Freshman English course, then the methods would have to fit this background. There is not sufficient time in a content course to change the basic orientation of students toward language. This does not preclude the inclusion of new material, hut this must he related to the linguistic 11*3 frame of reference in which the student operates. (The case study of AW indicates some of the -^rchlems a now frame of reference can raise.) TTTv ' A p p e n d i x B . 13U The areas of special attention in anv specific course should be de­ termined from the actual problems in writing in this course a3 determined 07 observation, not from an imagined list of grammatical rules. Because of the time available for Instruction in shills the number of areas should be kept snail; this do*"B not eliminate special attention to individual problems not on this list. Student comments and the data accumulated durLng the study indicate thAt the Scale and Dulde, while not effective in every part, are generally useful. The limitations of these as teaching devices as shown by the re­ sults of this experiment stress the necessity for constant revision to meet the changing needs of the students. The fact that almost all of the areas listed proved valuable in terms of developing skills indicates that the method of selection by observation is a sound one. Random choice of areas might by chance have given the same majority, and this was not test­ ed, but it is the conclusion of the writer that the method of selection was important. Probably the Scale could v e improved and simplified by removing the Double-plus and Double-minu3 ratings and by adding a neutral point. Ac­ ceptable. The four ratings would then be Plus, Acceptable, Minus, and No Application. The comments of the raters indicate that the differences be­ tween the Double-plus and Plus, and between Do lble—minus and Minus, are difficult to mark, and probably they contribute little to the student’s understanding of the problem. In addition it is obvious that some parts of the Scale need to be ro-worked, some items romaln too vague and otners r.i r.t well he divided <©.**. item 7 into; a. Limitation and Statement of 135 Subject; b. Organization; c. Conclusion). A separate item for examples would probably be worthwhile. The failure of certain items on the Scale to be significant may suggest that they be rewritten, but may be due to other causes, including the failure of the teacher to do an effective job in these areas. The Guide was kept short because it wa.3 felt tnat students would develoo a negative attitude toward a long descriptive text. However, the expected negative reactions toward the Guide did not develop, student comments indicating that it could well be expanded, perhaps to twice its present length. If it were longer it would have to be put in more graphic form, with a more elaborate use of underlining, indentation, and soac for q’lick reference. It is a truism that the way to learn to write is to write; the cor­ ollary is t)iat writing must be criticized and corrected. The most im­ portant part of this experiment is the frequent writing assignments and the careful correction of papers, with enough rewriting to impress stu­ dents with the fact that "good writing is rewriting." The marking by the teacher should never be so complete that the students do not have to make their own corrections; students must learn to proofread their own materials and develop an editorial attitude toward it. The experiment showed that the amount of time taken in class for instruction in writing skills was not excessive, but the indications are not so clear that the amount of time needed to correct papers 13 not more than the average teacher would take. The correction of Beven or a l cdit papers did not see excosci ve to t "■e two teachers involved, but 136 they are not typical since they each taught only one course in which writing was stressed, and only one section of this course with this stress. What the reactions of a teacher would he to the extension of this method to four or five courses was not tested. If the methods were extended to other courses then the amount o'" writing in any of them could he cut, perhaps to half; the efficiency of the Scale, in the opin­ ion of t.oe raters and of HH and JM, should he a big help in overcoming the teacher’s hias against the grading of written papers. A second solu­ tion, smaller classes, is outside the scope of this experiment, and goes against the trend in colleges such as Michigan State. The combining of content materials and skills seems not to he as groat a problem as the ore-oxoerimental studies had indicated. Only one student stated that he felt a conflict in aims and the two instructors felt that integration was not too difficult because the skills were not taught as such but only in relation to particular problems in the oresentntlon of subject matter. The pre— instruction in writing -oroblsBis riven by HH before each written exercise was always in terns of the assignment end was received favorably by students, since it indicated to them how they could improve their grades. This nre-inatruetion method, used by HH but not by JM, seems sound to the writer although this conclusion goes beyond the data. The Scale and Snide served as constant reference points to which the student could go it* he wanted further instruction. The data suggests that the Scale and Guide served their purpose well. 137 The training of teachers In sociology, not specifically trained in the teaching of skills, is the least carefully worked out r>art of the ex­ periment; it is not the central problem, and was not necessary in the case of JM, since an informal presentation left him and HH, who instructed him, satisfied that he had sufficient understanding of the problems to efficiently teach the skills. Tne average teacher in sociology has a good background in sons of the theoretical material which goes into the frame of reference, especially the work of George Mead and Piaget, the approach of the cultural anthro­ pologists, the relativism of most of the social sciences, behaviorism in general, something from the eemanticists, a knowledge of the mass media and oablic opinion, and the social-psychology of the formation of atti­ tudes. This experiment showed that JM, with from 10 to 1? hours of instruc­ tion, got results in general writing improvement and in some of the spe­ cific skills, although somewhat below the level of HH, the more exper­ ienced skills teacher. In some areas he did better than and this in­ dicates that the differences may be due to differences in personality and general ability. It is the personal conviction of the writer, without definite sunoort in the data, that 10 hours may be too little time to get the best results; perhaps ?0 hours would be about right, if it were fol­ lowed by some form of in-3ervice discussion of problems which arose in teaching. However, the amount of time and the tvoe of instruction would deoend on the individual; the constant caution is that in any experiment 13* of this kind the personality and ability of the teacher are more impor­ tant variables than the method. An attempt to relate these conclusions and to suggest further ex­ periments to improve the method will be made in the next chanter. 139 CHAPTER TEN SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND APPLICATION OF RESULTS I. Suggestions for Further Research: The general success of the experiment suggests that the methods of Integrating content and skills training is worth further Imrestigation; the weaknesses in the experiment and the experience in preparing it make clear what some of these investigations might be. First, the formulation of a method to make students understand and ooerate within a frame of reference seems important. Item 8 of the Writ­ ing Scale failed to make effective the concept of the Frame of reference, at least in the writing of students. The aporoach might be to sharpen up the section on Limitation of Subject, item 7» by example showing how the limited subject must be related to a total answer, both in what it in­ cludes and what it does not include. In addition, the whole concent of frame of reference needs reinforcement in the sections dealing with the relative nature of knowledge. Second, the imnortant but elusive nrohlem of antecedents will have to he attacked from some other point of view than the usual presentation of rules or the rather loose presentation of this thesis. Preliminary to any method should be a study of the types of antecedent mistakes which occur In particular writing situations. What research design would follow would depend on the findings of this description. No ready answer euggests Itself. Third, a more intensive effort should be made to discover what per­ sonality, intelligence, aod educational factors affect the orogresc of lUo students In learning writing skills. Such a study might well start with the general approach of the case studies collected in this experiment, semi—directive interviews to determine attitudes, to get personal his­ tories and sociological data. These should he supplemented by linguistic tests of various kinds to discover linguistic aptitude and general in­ telligence. A series of tests, interest inventories, adjustment profiles and attitude scales, shorild he administered and followed, where neces­ sary, with depth interviews and/or orojactive techniques. Fourth, the time is ripe for a comprehensive survey of the contri­ butions made by other disciplines to the understanding of the nature and function of language, and the implications in the teaching of skills. There are few books which do this for single disciplines, and none which does a satisfactory job of integrating the contributions of all fields to a unified frame of referenc*. Fifth, the relation of writing effectiveness and content trades on essay examinations and other written oapers needs to be explored fur­ ther. Most nresent studies concern themselves with mere correlations; the more fruitful approach would be to search out more detailed relation­ ships, as for examole the relationship between sentence structure and knowledge of content. Perhaps the method would be that of oaired obser­ vations where writing ability and/or content were kept constant. Sixth, the teaching of instructors in sociolog:/ to use the methods su Rf. UO. 1h p ■but should be uniform in style and frame cf reference. Their yeneral reference point should be the required course ir. skills and Its frame of reference; there can be no new orientation to lan£W*<-e although some of t're material may be new. C. Teachers would he trained in the frame of reference and methods agreed unor, but this would be a general framework, each teacher oners— tiny within it as he chose. Uniformity of >e gome renet it ion, but this would be valuable 1U3 in view of the different problems raised in different, disciplines and for repeated orectiee in a variety of situations. The scheduling should he buried on majors, including the typical collateral courses. F. Minin uni standards should he get and made as explicit as tf ey car he. They should not, however, be based on mere gramme tical const ceratl one but on clear, effective communication. Each teacher would interpret these standards as he understands them, but he would be expected to make them exnllcit for hi r. specific courses. Ct . At the end of the Junior year there should be a departmental qualifying examination, written to test grasp of subject, matter but graded also for writing. H. Those failing to reach a certain level in writing, or failing to meet the wri ting standards set in any course would be expected to do remedial work in an apnropriafe skills clinic, either formally or by con­ sultation with an instructor in skills assigned to the department or di­ vision. I. The expectations of the college in terms of writing should at all times be explicit, and fitted to a oattera o^ expectancy of students. The committee should have the resronsibi1itv of maintaining standards. The suggestions of t.M « and the previous chapter, as well as the results of this experiment., arc not panaceas for the solution of writing urobletns of students. They are more ir. the form of preliminary sugges­ tions on which urograms and future studies can be based. Their final suc­ cor r iener.dp mere on the cooperation of the ' ’f i r ' d i y n^-d ♦•he abi lt.les of' lUU ind IvidTial tepcher? than on the method; the method m a y help the teacher ■hut. the method will have to be made to work by the teacher. r_:x - o s t - z? lU6 APPENDIX A TENTATIVE OUTLINE TOR SOCIOICGT ?C1 Principles of Sociology Textbook: Wilson and Kilb: Sociological Analysis Collateral: Maclver and Page: Society I. The Sociological Approach and Framevcrk A. Sociology as a Science (Test: 1-50) S. Primary Concepts (Collateral: ?—Uo) C. Cultural Backgrounds of Social Life 1. Nature of Culture (Text: 55-^. 6 ^— ?3) ?. Cultural Variability (Text: 117-128,'13 0 -lUl) II* The Raw Materials of Social Relations A. Individual and His Society (Collateral: hi— 7 0 ) 1. Original Nature (Text? I5 5 -I 6 O, I 63 -I 6 8 , 177-180) 2. Socialization of Personality (Text: 181— lgf, 1 9 b— 2C7) 3* Personality Disorganization (Text: 222-251) B. Population: Conmositien, Distribution, Dynamics (Text: 393-39?. Uo?-^5: Collateral: 98-116, 531-551) C. Social Environments 1. Adaptation and Accomodation (Collateral: ^3“97. 11?—l"*b) 2. Social Roles (Text: 208—231) 3. Mores and Social Control (Collateral: I37 -PC9 ) IT I. The Social Structure A. Informal Social Groups arid Forma! Organization. 1. Types of Social Groups (Text: 263 — 270? Collateral: 217— 237) 2, Primary and Secondary Groups (Teat:287— 303? Collateral:Ui7-U5?) P. Community and Society (Collateral: 281— 7^7) ls Collective Behavior (Text: 30^— 3^3) ?. Comr.unal and Asrociat lonal Societies (Text: 3 b!-.3 6 6 , 3?1”392) 1*47 C. Institutional Arrangements 1. Political Organization (Text: 513“ 52l. 530-561; Collateral: U53-U67) 2. Economic Organization (Text: 553-557, 575-587; Collateral: I46S- US3) 3. Family Organization (Text: 588-592, 603-619; Collateral: ?38230) *4, Educational Organization (Text: 6?0— 6*4?) 5. Religious Organization (Text: 651-677: Collateral: U?U-U93) 6 . Functional Systems (Collateral: *49*4— 506) . 0 Stratification 1, Social Classes (Text: *429— *47*4; Collateral: 3*W5-383) 2. Ethnic Aspects (Text: *475-509? Collateral: 3^*4—*416) IV, Social Change, Process, and Social Stability A. Social Processes (Collateral: 509-513) 1, Conjunctive (Text: 681-703) 2. Disjunctive (Text: 713— 7*40) B. Dynamics of Social Change (Text: 765-771, 730— 797) 1, Patterns of Change (Collateral: 5*-9“ 530) 2. Technological Factors (Collateral: 552-573) 3# Cultural Factors (Text: 8*4—9*4, 111— 1.16; Collateral: 57*4— 537) C. Current Forces 1, Sociological Aspects (Text: 799-8*41) 2, Social Evolution (Collateral: 538— 625) 3* Interpretation of Social Change (Collateral: 6 2 6 - 6 3 5 ) V. Conclusion and Prospectus (Text: 8U3— 8*t8) lUs APPENDIX B INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDIES The following case studies are designed to explore some of the rea­ sons for individual differences In performance and improvement in writing. The assumptions "behind the selection of questions acked in the interviews which formed part, of the case studies are that family background deter­ mines in large measure the attitude of students toward language, that rigidities in certain areas may be reflected in general rigidity toward any new idea or teaching method, and that disturbances in the daily life of students may affect performance in class. The cases were selected from the experimental section taught by HK, since the writer had no re data on these students. The choice was limited by the fact that the interviews were made a year after the end of the ex­ periment, in May 19??; some students had graduated or left school. Of those remaining, students were selected on the basis of performance in wilting; poor students who improved in writing; poo r «t udert s who did not improve; average and good students who did or did not improve. These cases are not to be taken as definitive studies, nor do the generalisations based on them indicate more than probably or possible causes for individual differences; they may suggest further reseerch. 1U9 J.c. JC was a student of more than average ability in language who did poorly on the pro-test in writing but irrrnroved during the term more than any other student. Ke was a Sophomore at. the time of the experiment and somewhat more mature than the average of the class because of time spent in the army and in a factory. He cones from a lower-middle economic class family, his father a skilled workman. Both parents finished the 11th grade, but are conscious of the need for good English usage although no one in the fam­ ily reads much. JC considers his high school as "fair** (Pontiac). He ie aware of no serious family problems, financial, personal, or linguistic. His high school English was poor (C grades) and he feels that he worked below his level; he never liked reading or writing, did do some writing in high school but had poor instruction in such things aa sen­ tence structure. That his high school record is not indicative of his ability is shown by his performance on the entrance, examinations, the 9th iecile on the ACE Psvchological (linguistic factors), the 9th decile on the reading vocabulary, and the 10th on the reading comprehension sections of the Co-op English Test. He followed this with a B on the Written and Spoken English comprehensive and ranked in the 8th decile on the theme written as a part of it. He liked the course (WSE). Cn the written pre-test for this course he made a writing grade of C- D-, far below his expected level; although there were few gross mechar;1 e*l errors he received minus signs on most part e of the Writing Scale. 150 During the term his grades ran C, C, B, O , most serious t caknesses to B B on the post-test. The early in the term were in sentence structure, es­ pecially elemental, choppy sentences, reflecting what he had indicated as T)Oor training in this area. His later papers showed an increased var­ iety in structure, probably a real improvement. He states that he became oriented to the course and the purposes of the writing assignments "about the middle of the term" and this is reflected In his work. There is per— fixit hans some real irrorovement in the use of concepts, although his^two pa­ pers are so insignificant in content that it 1 bdifficult to Judge. JC made a grade of B on the Social Science comprehensive examination and a B in Effective Living which he took the same term as Soc. 201, but he does not. feel that his social science background was oarticularly strong. This is a typical reei'onne with him; he does not feel that- he is narticularlv good in any subject, including English, and is constantly surprised thnt "the college thinks I am a B student." He ranked in the Sth decile on tho pre— test in sociology with a mark of ?9, improving to a mark of U 5 on the 0 0 st— test, a. -rood increase considering the high starting score. His final course grade was B— . He had an all college grade average of 3*^5 (B^) the time of the exporinuit but started tc drop during the term of the experiment to a ^.95 (E) at the time of the interview. He has good professional motiva­ tion, cartography. His react lor. to the course in general was neutral to fair, to the teacher good, and to the writing instruction and emphasis (pood. He thought the ar-r)roach umisual, liked the Writing Guide and used 5♦ largelv vecause he wa« shocked hy M s writing grades on the M r s t 151 two papers. On the Teacher Evaluation Sheet he wrote that he "hoped" the emphasis on writing* had done him some good and "believes" it hae heen helpful in understanding the subject matter of the course. He states that he still has writing difficulties, but feele that he is more conscious of the problems of communication as a result of the course and that he still makes some use of the lessons learned. He did "not read enough in the course to do good work." His family is not a\:thori tarian in its relationships but is some­ what anti—Jewish and anti-Catholic. He is engaged to a Catholic girl, arid the problem became acute during the experimental term, partly be­ cause hi8 girl lives in Pontiac and he "could not keep my mind on my work." There is probably an element of family antagonism here also not stated - his own mild anti-Catiolioi3m having changed during his first year in college and especially a3 a result of his love for thi3 girl during the term he tooK Soc. TOl. The drop in his grade point av­ erage, ho feels, is a direct result of his girl living In another town, but hia present "don't earn" attitude, "can't seen to study," "don't 5 . ^ 1 to ’el murf- out of college any more," probably Indicate a mora ser­ ious block which affected his work during the experiment. JC feels that education is important primarily as a means of rising aoove his class level, "to get out of the factory'," and this is reflected in his family*3 attitude; he also hopes to get an Insight into living, but there is no strong interest in ideas. Conclusion: JC, although showing more improvement in writing than atr- of — r o . v r n in t.ne er.ourime:;*., actually roa*» little above his expec*ed 152 level, except perhaps in sentence construction. A more or less serious emotional problem probably kept him from really profiting from the writ­ ing instruction, since he had a sound base from which to work, a driving incentive to get ahead, and an inculcated attitude toward "good” English. Holding him back, also, was his too low estimate of his own ability, in suite of which and in spite of bad study habits and the emotional prob­ lem of the past year he has kept his grade average at about B. A.C. AC is a case of a student below the college level in linguistic abil­ ity, who failed to benefit much from the experiment in spite of hard work and good motivation. Experiencewith him suggests the probability that the method is not too effectivewith sub-marginal students. He was a Soohomore at the time of the experiment. He is a Negro from an upper— lower economic class home, his father a semi-skilled worker with two years of college, his mother a registered nurse. The family is conscious of "good" English and the necessity for higher education, but the level of usage in the home is about that of the average working class family with high school education. He thinks there are no great family problems, personal, financial, or linguistic, except that of race. AC went to a large high school in Detroit (Northwestern) which he thinks was a "fair" school, but where he got a "poor attitude toward edu­ cation." He has always had trouble with writing, did poorly in English courses, but. had little trouble with grammar. He ranked in the 1st decile on all throe narts o r tve col lege entrance examination* (linguistic factors 153 and failed the Written And Spoken English comprehensive examination the first time he took it, "but got a C the second time. Ke liked this course •'etter thAn his high school English courses tecau3« the teacheis gave him a lot of personal attention. One of these teachers wa3 the writer, and this contributed to an early rapport And understanding by AC of the writ­ ing objectives of the course. He took full advantage of the services of the Writing Clinic and Reading Clinic during his first year and learned many rules about writing which he still remembers and applies mechanical­ ly, but he does not feel that he learned to write more easily. His writ­ ing improved somewhat in the first •two years of college. On the written pre-test for this experiment he had the poorest pa­ cer in either section taught by HH, • T, but this is reflected more in mistakes not categorired on the Scale (e.g. define for the past tense) than in a consistent double-minus marking. This paper was below any lev­ el of acceotance for college. Ey hard work and, whan possible, careful revision AC had marks of C— (rewritten O ) , Cw, B-, B— , B, C*t, with a final grade of D t 3 on the post—test which he could not revise. His writing shows some imoroveaent in statement of ;ect, organisa­ tion and content, mechanics (because of more care and revision), and perhaps in other area3. It is hard to evaluate the real progress of AC in writing since he starts so far below the expected level of college students. Ee;ror.d the reccired basic coarse in connunlcation skills, the work ir. the two clin­ ics and the attention to -riting in this course AC had received train­ ing in Business Letter Writing and Expository Writing, and in both has i had trouble in sim-ole mechanics, although he does fairly well in organi­ zation and content. His record all the way through has heen hurt "by a hlock against English and writing, a poor linguistic "background, care­ less habits reinforced by his aray years: he is not fluid in the use of language. What he learns, and he has learned in college and in this course, is rote memorization of rales and -principles which he can aonly mechanically — if he is given time to go over his work. He has, in addi­ tion, good study habits in regard to writing, use of the dictionary, con­ stant proofreading by other students, etc., and some Insight into his own problems, but he h.As "no ability to revise my own work" beyond simple mech­ anics. AC made a C on the Social Science coi.rprehensive examination and a C In Effective Living. His all— college point ave-ege at the time of the ex— ■oeriment was a little better than ?.?. On the protest in sociology for this exoeriment he ranked in the Uth decile with a score of ?0; he im­ proved 11 points on the post— test, less than the class mean improvement of 17. His final grade of C+ was -probably too high in terms of real abil­ ity, but reflects his effort. He has fair professional motivation, accounting, and does fair work in his ma^ior. He liked the course, Soc. ^Ol, and the teacher (ratings of A on the Teacher Evaluation Sheet), but found the book too hard and con­ fusing in its organization. He felt that the writing eamhasis was to his advantage, and felt that this was so from the first mention of it in class because of his ranoort with the teacher. He found the Scale useful put did not use the Guide nuch since he feels that he learns "by ear" 155 better t:ian from written instructions* He was one of two students who made frequent use of office help. The one emotional problem which might set tip a block is his race; although he does not feel that he is particularly bitter he asks* "How can y o u help being conscious of being a Negro?" He does not feel that he has been discriminated against as a Negro more than others, especial­ ly here at college; he feels that the writer and most of his other teach­ ers have treated him as an individual. The family is not particularly religious, is pro— labor (father a CIO member) and not authoritarian although "mother runs the family . . . be­ cause she is home more." His interest in education is recent; at graduation from high school he had no interest in college but two years of army life convinced him he needed college to "get ahead." The drive to better himself and to help his family, some of whom have sacrificed to send him to college, is strong, but his strongest incentive is his interest in sports. He came to college primarily to play football, has never made the varsity but has been on the Junior varsity. He perhaps has some attitude of defeatism be­ cause of this failure, his difficulty with English and "letting my fam­ ily down." Conclusion: AC, in spite of a positive approach to the course and the teacher, drive to better himself in communication skill, hard work, and good study habits cannot benefit too much from the instruction in skills in this coarse. He is so deficient in mechanics, at least in their ai-o, thnt he finds the non-orescriptive method confusing, and the level 156 of instruction beyond him in l.arge part. Actually he should never have been admitted to college until he had had a sounder grounding in simple English. Because of his poor language background he has a block against instruction in skills. In suite of all these difficulties he did profit from the writing and correction of papers and reinforced some of the skills he alroady had. If he were to get the same attention in writing in the future that he has had in the past, including this course, he would show improvement, but the process is bound to be very slow, J.D. JD was an individual with average ability in English who showed little improvement in the coarse, probably because of severe emotional problems. He was a Sophomore at the time of the experiment. He comes from a lower-middle economic class home, his father a supervisor at an automo­ bile plant. His father had a year of college, his mother none, but their interests are about those of college graduates. They are conscious of and use good English, J D went to a small town high school. Holt, Mich., which he thinks was a "fair" school. His English work in high school dropped from A to C, largely because of increasing amounts of literature. He disliked read­ ing, but did not have any trouble in it or in mechanics; he wrote very little in high school and found it not too difficult. On the linguistic factors of the entrance examinations he rated high, in the 6th decile on the ACE Psychological but in the 9th decile in reading vocabulary and 157 reading conrnrehension sections of the Co-op English test. In suite of this indication of his ability He made only a C on the Written and Spoken Eng­ lish comprehensive and ranked in the ^nd decile on the theme which was a part of it. His difficult-/ in this coarse was in sneaking, since he stut­ ters mildly, and in writing; he feels that he wrote at a "high school lev­ el" and didn*t improve. On the written pre-test he rated C + C; the paper had no major weak­ nesses nor did it show any particular merit. The other pacers for the term were either C* or 3- and his last caper 0— , Of, B- (three raters be— ca'ise of disagreement). In general it can he said of his paoerr. that they were fairly good but never really strong — often dull, vague, or too gen­ eral. The writing weaknesses are those which could well be improved by tr.e skills stressed in this course. JD thinks that his high schorl background in the social sciences was good, because of his eruerience in a club which took an active interest in -political and social issues, re made a B on the Social Science compre­ hensive and a C in Effective Living. On the ore— teet in sociology he scored r'_if in the Hth decile, raising ' • “is score If points (the mean increase for the class)on the oost— test. His final grade was B-. JD has an ail college grade average of (C+), started as a -police administration major but is changing to personnel work because of a grow­ ing interest in psychology and sociology, doubtless tied to his own ps:^chological and psychiatric counselling experience. His mAjor interest is music but he does not feel that he can make a career of it. His reactions ^ --j Tpr- p-nr." nrj ha -a? " generally ’avorable" toward the 15* toAcher Although somewhat surprised by "an English teacher teaching so­ ciology," and by the non-conforming habits of the teacher, snort shirts and general informality. This reaction, he says, was not negative. He did not study more than the average for this coarse, but thinks that hi*? good rending comprehension helped him get the material well: he is cor­ rect in this evaluation, he has good if slow reading comprehension. Be­ cause of the course he now is more conscious of the importance of writ­ ing, but a year after the course he was not aware that he was using mater­ ial learned in the coarse. He thinks he writes better because of the course, especially in the use of concrete examples. As a child he stuttered badly although he now sneaks fairly well. During the "ear of the experiment his health weo bad, nausea, disainess, shock. He took regular counselling from a psychiatric case worker at the college, who thinks he is rigid in his chinking, that his stuttering and sicknesc are Dsyohosomatic in origin. His reports about his family give sons clue to the causes. They arc* not very strict about religion, but have strong negative feelings about inter-faith (proteetar.t-Catholic) marriages and about Jews, Although fie has s o m e 1r. sight ii.to the causes of Vila own problems And Attitudes he doec rot take a critical attitude toward :iir. family: T h e y arc about average in prejudice to ware Negroes . . . believe thay are better segregated in nousing . . . but nave no prejudice against Jews . . . perhaps a little.*1 He thinks he now goes slong with their views on Negroes but not on Jews, and he shows little growth of under*tending an a result of the courses in psychology and eo.n.P/"; v f. ha? taker, and "likes.* The faintly it- rnrty-line P.er ublicAr, I 159 likes Tsft and strong; (anti-) labor legislation. He shares V. ese views. His father makes the major decisions in the family; his mother "never argues , , , I have never heard her question a decision,M However, he says he dislikes the army type of discipline and authority and was glad the teacher in JD scored this course was not authorits.tive, very low on t>e California Inventory and other measures of personality adjusts ent; these and other records of the counsel ling service substantiate the general conclusions drawn above, but the rec­ ords are. such that they are not available for more explicit re-oorting in thi • tv'esi s , He is one o f t> e few students interviewed wrc expressed an interest ir. ideas and he says that the search for answers is the uurpose of edu­ cation, although he al no -*ar1 1 to wr3 re in the social structure" through education. Just w) p.t this interest Ir ideas means ir not o'*,ear, sirce he seer.s tc resist many of their ir.pl icat ion a in tern, s of hi f own attitudes and actions. Conclusion: JD migh t have nroflted much from i> e exr primeri since he has a good base in language, However, he has ar> emotional problem, of which sees of t>e s’-icrtcms are stuttering and sickness, and is rigid ir. v 1 f a>Mtuder, These rigidities may have affected his response to t> e 'T.u p u -'I sitnatior. cf teachirr skills in a content course, and the non— nrescrirtlve a m reach. His background is traditional and he resists chance; he r>rehab Jv would have orofi ted more from a rrescrir tive method cf teaching skills. —v-,, e,y ; s^or" wo aid cam and. a eormrO r * ,rD i a re '•o'" >"•i **-~ t,? er- **"ic h r1 <•f vsyohi atrie analysis. ♦s>d**, a*'d 160 G.J. GJ was a student with very good linguistic ability who wrote care­ lessly on the first written papers but soon returned to his expected level; he was an ideal type student since he wes able to discriminate and select those parts o*1 the writing instruction which would heir him the most. His improvement in certain areas is definite, although slight, and represents what the effect ofthe exnerimertal methods can be on students who start with a goodgrasp of thecommunication skills. GJ was a Junior at the time of the experiment, a mature student, married with two children. He comes from a very disorganized family*, hie father is an engineer without college training; his mother was a college greduate who died when he was four* A stepmother is poorly educated and crude, in his opinion. He spent the veare five thro’igh eight in an or­ phanage, lived under the care of his stepmotner for three years, and then keot house with hie brothers while his father travelled. For many years he has been on his own. He went to a variety of schools, some "good” and son'e"bad.■ In suite o*’ this he thinks his language background is good, since he has always been a heavy render. English was his best subject in high school, all A work. On the linguistic factors, of the entrance examination he ranked in the 10th decile on all parts, following this with an A in Written and Sucker English, which he liked; he ranked in the 10th decile on the theme written as a r>art of the WSE comprehensive, and particularly liked the sr>eech training in the course. 163 On the written pre-test for this experiment he rated C— C— , far be­ low his level, and this is reflected on the Scale In the sections on sen­ tence structure and in the -use of antecedents; the low grade is largely carelessness combined with some obscurity in sense. During the term hie grades ran Ot, B, B— , B— , and B A B on the post— writ ten test. This is merely a return to his exoected level although there i« evidence that he improved slightly in the skills enrohasized in the course; his greatest gain is In specificity and sirrrolicity of style. He made an A on the basic Social Science and Effective Living comcrehensive examinations; this represents his usual performance since he finds co 11 ere work easy and has a grade point average of 3*5 (^5* with­ out doing too much work. He ranked in the 9tb decile on the pre-test in sociology with a score of 33» and improved 1? noints on the post.— test (this is a big Improvement 3ince he started so high). His work during the term ranged from C to A+. depending on whether the Droblem interested him. These grades are not the best indication of his ability, since his origi­ nal mind often led him to go off on tangents, to explore his own interests. GJ was in most wave an ideal student.; he had stronr motivation (in­ terest in economics leading to graduate work), was interested in ideas, had a good language background and was intelligently critical of the teacher, the course, and the ideas they presented. Hie first reaction to the course and the teaching of skills was negative, but later inmroved although he felt a conflict between the goals of the course, content and writing. He had some reservatIons about the teacher but his attitude was generally favorable. He felt that the course "beat around the bush too 16? much,* but blamed this on the nature of sociology arid not on the teacher; he thought the teacher did well in making more precipe the sociological theory through the use of examples. He made some use of the Scale and G-uida and thinks that they have value an teaching aide: he thinks there has been some carry—ever value for him, especially in organization arid use of examole. (His writing sup­ ports this belief.) He thinks he is more conscious of antecedents. He concludes that more courses ahould emphasize writing. His family background early made him a *rebel." His father was very strict, but he bar, re-acted against this so that he is now very anti—author­ itarian, a "non— confornist.H H« liked, the non-conformity of the teacher fin dress and teaching method) and the ncn-euthoritarian, non-prescriptive approach to communication skills. He is interested in college for the theoretical arid intellectual stimulation, and because of itB imolications for his chosen career. He worked about his average for twe course, not very much. Conclusion: GJ started below hip writing level and worked back to it during the course. Hi? advancement wee p 3ig>-t t since he started with a good grasp of writing skills, but he did learn to organize better, use more meaningful examples and to be more aware of antecedents. There are no obvious difficulties which affected his work, arid his advancement- may be considered as typical of students who came to the course with a good linguistic background and skill in comnmnic&tion. 163 S.K. SK tos a student with a v e r s e linguistic ability, average intelli­ gence and motivation, who conformed to the writing goals of the course sufficiantlv to make a slight improvement. k: skiHn. She represents probably the largest group in the experiment, the conforming, uninspired students who do not distinguish themselves. She was a Sophomore at the time of the experiment. She comes from at . upper middle economic class hone, her father a chief engineer* She has three sih.s, attended a good primary and secondary school (East Lan­ sing), is aware of no great emotional, firanrial , or linguistic prob­ lems in her family. Her pre— experiment school record was not nnu®iml; she made good hirb school grades in English, m o s t l y grammar and 11 t-erature, and had little work in the social sciences. On the 1 irguiatic sections of the en­ trance examinations she ranked in the hth decile in reading vocabulary arid In the Oth decile on reading comprehension ard on the ACE Psycholog­ ical. Consistent with this woe her C grade on the Written and Spoken Eng­ lish ccmnrecer.slve examination, but her theme written for this examina­ tion was somewhat below her ability, since she makes few mechanical mis­ takes. She made Of 3— on the written pre-test for this experiment. On the rating Scale this grade is reflected in minus checks on conceptuali­ zation, somewhat elemental sentence structure and average marks on the other parts of the Scale. Her paper was mechanically perfect. During the term her grades for writing remained oonsietcn t, C4*. B-, P— , Pf. C+, C+v C, Cf C. ar.^ Cf f*. She showed 1it h1,» original th’n.- ing \€k or ability to communicate c^eerly and sharply. The only improvement demon­ strated is in the use of concepts. SK had failed the first comprehensive examination in Effective Liv­ ing but made a C on the second attempt. She was doing C work in the Hasic Social Science course at the time of the experiment (the third term). She ranked in the 7th decile on the ore-teBt sociology, a score of ?7. but improved only 5 points on the post— test. Her final grade was C. It is not too difficult to assign a reason for her lack of real im­ provement. in the course. Her all college point record wfts p . 3 (Of)* she has has fair nrofessional motivation in secretarial science, and has some consciousness of the necesritv for good communication in her school work and chosen profession. She liked the extra attention on skills, especially the definite suggestions on the Guide and the detail of the Scale and comments on papers. She felt at the time that the work war of value and found, that, in the next term especially, she made use of the material she had learned about writing. She was not 90 conscious of these lessons a pear later, but thinks ♦hat she still used what, she learned. On the Teach­ er Evaluation Sheet at. tue end of the cour-.e she wrote: »'I think that the writing has helped me Athe course and feel that it should be a part of all courses. I have become more conscious of my writing and have been trying to improve it.* At the end of the course she felt that the teacher rated A on ef­ fective sceech and for working with students, and 3 on all other counts. A year later she felt that this was a fair Judgment. She liked the teach»r, thought +vu> 0 * yal »se, end the con tent of erect value in "th-'ln*1 365 her to ^mderstand -people. However, this course made no great change in her collage program: she has had one course since In the social sciences, economics, h-ut made little crons reference to this course. Since the course she has appreciated the value of some of the subject matter of so­ ciology which did not impress her at the time, A lengthy interview failed to show any rigidity in attitudes toward religion, economic problems, labor, race, or authority. She prefers a teacher who exercises enough authority to keep tie class organized and moving in a recognizable direction, but who is non-prescrintive in pre­ senting a point, of view: 3 he th inks the teacher ir tM s course was "Just r1 gh t," The purpose of education to SK ir practical: 1. Fro Sessional train­ ing; To teach one "how to associate M t h people;" 3* To develop self reliance. Her interest in ideas is slight. Her score on the Bell Adjustment inventor;/ was average. She shows hieh interest in social service on several inventories. She thinks the writing instruction in the ;/->ir9e has a carry-over value fcr per and *h ir.V.s the emphasis or. writing should he a part of a* least one course each year, and in general of all courses. Conclusion: All these observations show an average student with an average language background, with average motivation. The reason that SK did not imnrove in the course in skills is tied to the term "average" find she is satisfied to remain average, to conform, but has no drive. She did not. "work too hard for tne course," Her favorable responses are 166 typical of many, and reflect a general willingness to go along, easily, uncritically, and without conviction. T».M. 3M was a student of above average ability in writing who sis r*ed the term writing below nor level ana conformed to the aims of the course enough to regain this level. Her ce.se ie similar tc. that of SK, except that her linguistic ability is greater. She was a Sophomore at the *ime of tv,e experiment. She comes from an upper middle economic class home, her rather a sales representative. She is an only child, at tended a •’good,” large high school (Saginaw Ai*thur Hill). Her father com pleted one you" !M const lers her faually about the R 7 ? w s vse ov language, at "about the high go'-ool of college, her mother none. *or the lower middle class in g rad u ate l e v e l . 1" Her high school English record war. good, with graces o r A and B earned chiefly throu-**, sneaking and wri ting; she waa poor in literature since she hag never liked to real. On the linguistic factors of thn an— t’niico examinations eho ranked in t -itn J«ci le on roedi ng vocar. a r y and rending comprehension and in the bt.n docile on trie ACE Psychologi­ cal. Consistent with thJs wag her B grade on the Written and Spoken Eng­ lish conorehetisivc she took by special penuission at the end of the second term. The the.ue written ’or til 3 examination was in the 7 th deci1«. On the written ore-teat for thi3 experiment she fell below her exr/Cf-rt,v! level, to a C C— grade. Or the Hating Sc.nl* this i*» reflected in 1*7 the throe parts under Conceptualization; she showed little understanding of the nature and function of concepts and this is evident in trie con­ tent, In other respects she shows the expected mechanical proficiency hut there is little grasp of the subject matter, few examules, no speci­ ficity. During the course of the term her writing and content showed Im­ provement with almost consistent plus signs on the Rating Scale; the writ­ ing grades were C, C+-, C-f, B-, C, C4*: B— , Of. B-. These grades indicate that she did little more than conform to the expectations of the course, to avoid careless writing; there is little evidence of real except in the use of concepts, and few cases inro rove.nent, original thinking. At times she ran into problems of clarity and uno of antecedents, usually lacking definiteness and good exfluwoles. but her antecedent mistakes were not mechanical hut based on a lack of precision in ex*asoing subject mat­ ter. The final paper was rated B— Of and there were no check marks on the minus side, and none on the double-plus columns. The over—all organiza­ tion and statement of subject were good and indicate some improvement in •ro . reroent 1* not obvious. She carries a grade m i n t avera-w of '*,ho (B4-) and stud is? well and efficiently; she has good professional motivation, to prepare herself to teach home economics (a practical rather tnan a theoretical interest). She felt that thero were too many paoere "for a sociology class'’ hut this negative attitude wan offset by a liking for the nractical values of the Writing Guile and Scale and the procl?*? comments on the papers which she could relate to her needs and professional inter­ ests. Her general attitude toward the coarse was somewhat negative; on the Teacher Eval-iation Sheet she rated the teacher's presentation of subject matter, speech,and willingness to work with, students at 3, the teacher as B. but dropped to C on the key comients on whether the ob­ jectives of the course wore met, whether the teacher stimulated origi­ nal thinking, and on the grading. At this time she praised the teacher for making her "think oat examples of my own and to integrate the differ­ ent parts of the course." A year later she thought that the course wnp not precise enough, t^e boo1': confusing, the subject .natter too theoret­ ical, but that the course was well organized and the teacher neither too a ithoritative nor too permissive. She had only a slight interest in the course because she did. "not know what she wag doing," and felt that the teacher was "so— so." The carry-over values of the course have been slight, she feels,although she has aDt>lled some of the information and skills in other courses. She feels that she is now better able to organ) her thinking {aimoorted by con cl unions reached i^ the above 169 evnl’tRtion of her writing) and thinks that this Is a carry— over from the class. She thinks more classes ought to stress writing. The interview showed no rigidities which might have prejudiced her improvement in the course. Her mother Is anti—Catholic, but GM has re­ sisted this since high school days, making friends as she chooses. There are no family or personal dognatic views about economic matters, Just a general conservative bias. The family is easy going and she is aware of no oat terms of authority. However, she indicates that she is somewhat submissive, likes a well organ!red class and rarely rebels against what she is told. In addition, and most important, she conforms to the expec­ tancies of the clans or other group in which she finds herself. Thi9 is reflected in such statements as, “I never get class work in late." One of her papers gives a good description o.f ner attitude, a typical comment! ’'Often when I become discouraged with studying there is always the thought of not letting my sorority sisters down . . ." Her professional interest is practical; college is to prepare her for a Job and to allow to to "have fun.** She hoe no interest in ideas as such. S h e feels little motivation to i-..prove her writing, but does to im­ prove her speaking which has a practical purpose in her field of interest. She 11<88 college but does not 3tudy too hard (but efficiently) nor did aha in this coarse. She thinks of herself as emotionally calm and this is supported by records in the counselling service and by the observation of the teacher. Conclusion: G}/ is a typical student of above average ability who has '.ever tel t the n e c e s e l tv f o r self im^ro ve-oer. t b e y o n d th* uvunl pattern o*‘ 170 preparing; herself for the oosition in life she has set for herself. She is enough of a conformist to go along with the objectives set by the teacher but has no motivation for going much beyond. She states that ’’the general attitude of the students at MSG is anti— wri ting" but that she would probably go along if this attitude were changed by college-wide demands for better writing. Since she started well below her writing lev­ el in this course it follows that she would conform sufficiently to rise to her level, but not beyond. M.P. MP was a student who improved greatly in her graso of sociology but whose writing dropped somewhat, oerhaps as a result of a negative block against instruction in writing. Her writing was such that the instruction in this course could have aided her materially. She was a Sophomore at the time of the experiment. Her father is a college executive (University of Michigan) with a M.A. degree, her mother a registered nurse. They aro conscious of good usage. She lihinks her grade school training was very no or but that her high school was "pretty good." Her English grades in high school were C and H, baaed on lots of literature, which she liked, but little writing, in which she was poor. She scored in the bottom two deciles on the lin­ guistic factors of the college entrance examinations, got a C on the Written and Spoken English comprehensive although she ranked in the 8th decile on the theme which was & part of it. This indicates that she was very low in mechanics or in speech. She though t.M •* coarse (WS/5) was a 171 noor one, dldji*t think she did enough writing, but liked one of her tenchsrs who "really helped me in writing." On the written -ore— test for this ermerimant she scored 3 G+; her writing; grades t'irouph the t e n ran C + , C4; B— . E, C— , B, with m grade on the noflt-teat o** C 4 C. ft drop to -nrrfornance. Her chief mrohl ems throoghout the term were sentence structure which was either too involved for clear sense or too elemental, antecedents, limitation and statement of subject, and spelling:, all hut the last item being a m r t of what was "taught.* She rewrote two papers and wrote an extra paper. Her record in­ dicates that she can do E work she has a lack of critical in writing, hut that she often does not: sense about her own work and probably needs additional practice in writing to make her work more consistent. MP had (grades of C in the basic Social Science And Effective Living courses. She made a score of 1 ^, in the ?nd decile, on the r>re— test in sociology, raisins this to U7 , in tie 8 th decile, on the nost-teat, the second biggest increase in thesection. Her final grade was B+, based on this increase and her rewriting of poor oaoers. UP ig one of ti e few who improved markedly or the objective tests but whose writing got worse: usually improvement, in one was related to improvement in the other. Her total grade ooint average, ?.U at. the time but ? . ? 5 a year later, indicates that she is only a Cf student; her work in this course indicates that she could easily do B work. Her profession­ al goal is based on a liking for children but it is doubtful that she has any connelling drive to make her a good student, '’er chief interest h . - i n - ’• o r <30r o r i t y a n d m c i el 1 1f e« 17? In the interview a year after the experiment she stated that ehe enjoyed the course, found it well organized and not too theoretical; she likes sociology. She thinks that she was neutral toward the teacher and toward the writing 1n the course, hut found the Scale and Guide of value end the essay examinations fairer than objective tests. However, on the Teacher Evaluation Sheet at the end of the course she said that the course failed to meet important objectives and the grading procedures did not give valid results. (This was before she knew that she was to get 8 BV in the course.) She rated the teacher A or B on the other parts of the evaluation. She stated that she got a "better understanding of how teachers grade essay examinations "but feels that she did not learn as much sociolog:,r os she thought she would: "I expected to learn exact facts as I do in most courses.” A year after the coarse she thought that she had learned more than she though t at the time, and that she makes fre­ quent use of some of the material, especially that relating to the inter­ action of groups and the development of the child; she thinks there have "been no after effects in her writing. S h e stated that her ever;,nay wrl tir.g 5 f- better than that done for classes; in letters for example her father is very critical of her writ­ ing, sending corrected letters "back to her. This pressure from her father is the only thing she thinks has influenced her reaction to the writing instruction in the course; she has a "negative attitude toward writing better.'- However, she thinks the method xised was non-authoritative and she liked this. There seem to be no rigid patterns of attitudes in re— 11 » l r r , t race, o r econoxl cs, b u t she i s s o m e w h a t o f a <~on *1* rmi «*t, i n d i c a t e d 173 by her going along with the writing objectives of the coarse although she has a block here. She feels that she had good motivation for college work luring her first two years, including the term of the exoeritnent, but not in the past year; this is seen in her recent decline in grades. She 15 e subject. This decline followed the death of her grandmother discussed latf- r» There is no evidence that she 1 earned any th ing from the writing it— struct ion in the course. AW made a grade of 3 on the Effective Living oonrr-rehensive, taken the ssrie term as the experiment. H^r ecore on the sociology ore-test, was PH, ir the 7th decile, hnt she only improved 1? m i n t s to ho on the oost.- test., less than the mean increase for the class. Her final grade rag C4» Her "background suggests that she ~oul d have done "better work in "both content and writing than she die. Her English training is good, although rrescrit tive, and her all college grade average is 7 (B) . Her attitude toward writing ir. the course wa? negative "because she felt that she had had all the English one needed in high school and college and could see r.o reason why she should be criticired for Engliah in "a sociology course." She wondered what a teacher of comcur.5 cation skill was doing *tecv'dng sociology, but she liked tr.e Scale and lulde, since they were •:.rable ar * enact ■*"!c. She liked the subject mat ter ot in a course, t M n k e there is "nothing like it;" she says that she liked the theory "but there is no evidence of thio eleewhr-re. She did net study much. Her interest in the course led her tc major in the social sciences and she has made appli­ cation of tv e material ir her chosen field, elementary education with a social science emohaeie, especially the material on the socialisation of tve child which she had received in no other course. Her estimates of the •~ ,Mf ar-’ t*•* <*r a f *» e«-d o'* the ta v*» . or the TflPt'r.f»r Ibvolua* iOTi Sheet , 176 were the lowest in the class, generally C, although she did think the teacher worked well with students. She wrote that she did not think she learned much about writing, oT if she did that she had applied it except in the use of examples. The wri t ir.g, however, she thought- hn»* helped her tc understand the subject matter of the course. She felt that having to think about writing effectiveness kept her from doing as well as she might on content, (These responses seem confused.) Her family, particularly the mother, have some prejudice against Negroes and. Jaws; she says that she does not snare this attitude toward Negroes "but does toward Jars. Her family i<-, anti-labor and v'«r mother es­ pecially has strong i^eas about government spending and "socialism in goveriJEent," but AW doesn't think much about these problems. She says that her family is not authoritarian, but they chose her college and tried to or event, her from going with her boy friend; they now half accept, him. She has never *'elt close to her family, but loveo her grandmother who died during the third week of the experimental term. The attitude of her mother i® especially revealing; her mother once bribed her to 1 a job in the library which ere bar. gotten for herself* In almost every response it is her mother who is mentioned; her father seems tc be unimportant. She says she doesn't "get. excited about much," hap no strong opinions, never studies much, that she ip apathetic. She explains this by saying that evorvthJng be? been done for her, whether she likes it or not. Because of this she has a set idea about authority; she U V e d ♦'or-el teaching and thought the teacher in this course too informal and permissive; she tends r*r. ■*-ith t *■a a ' er I* i »•.»<•e are nr *■ too she rt ling. 177 har no strong ideas although she state*; ttat she ip itaterested in them. The most important thin*- in. her life is her hoy ■f'riend, with whom she has achieved a "balanced" relationship, not submissive; she doesn't l«t him r.MP the decisions by himself, in fact says that "Probably I make the rna/or decisions.'’ However, she states that she is determined that neither will dominate the other. The purpose education for her is to prepare her to live with oth­ er?. She wae very active in campus activities at Kentucky* pushed by her mother, but does nothing h**re outside of sorority work. Conclusion: AM is a typical over—protected child whose li^e has teen so easy that she has no particular drive. There is hatred of her mother, but no critical sense. She comes from an authoritarian background, in­ cluding linguistic, is ri.fi d in many areas, not interested in ideas, is willing to conform and suspicious of the "different." ?or these reasons she reacted negatively to the teacher arid the method of teaching skills; this coupled with her e-eneral apathy and the death of her frrandmother mad?, the experiment a total failure for her. It is nrobable that tve dis­ traction of her #rrar.'’mother's death caused the d ror> after the second nant r and that she is enough of a conformist to have pone alon*: with the aims of ♦he course except for this fact. 175 APPENDIX C SOCIOLOGY ?01 Spring _ 1QS0__ ~ ?1 TRUE - FALSE; If True mark 1, If False mark ~. 1. Social charge can occur through a mal-functioning of the social system. Sociology tries to establish the best norms for a society. % In. the scientific method the student must, always work frcm the parti­ cular to the general. Shaking hand* is a folkway in America. S. Status refers to people who have wealth, po^er and prestige. f'. Sociology cannot study values since tbev arc purely a matter of indi­ vidual opinion. 7. Though there are some differences in customs the same basic mores are found in all civil iced societies. 5. Sociological etu de s show that toe upper classes arc inherently men­ tally superior. 9. Sociology can predict wi th assurance the future changes which will take r>la<~e in society. 1' . The roles of nal e ar c female arc ascribed in our soci ety. 11. A church convention is a secondary group. If1. Sociology has discovered the laws of social change. H. Normative is a term used to indicate that value judgments lU. Status arid role mean the seme thing. arepresent. lt;. it. Is agreed by noet Sociologists that the nubile isirrational opinions and ac+ione. 1^. Polygamy is not ncrmal. ir its 179 17. If it can be shown that all Items in a class or category have a cer­ tain set of characteristics it follows that these characteristics have a necessary relationship. I**. A scientist gathers data, analyses it and makes generalisations: this is a deductive orocess. 19. Sociologically, deviancy is considered as neither good nor bad be­ havior. PO. Formal group structure insures the group against the formation of cliques. Pi. Since all people perceive the world through the same senses, the cen­ tral problem in understanding another language is to translate the words it uses into the equivalent word in English. PP. A society cannot have both a caste and a class system. -P. Primary grouus lack persona!— social conflict. Pk. Since reality is made irn of "things” and "movement,” it is natural that the main divisions of language are nou.ro (things) and verbs (acti on). The patterns of social control are slow to change ir. or.r society. p£. A clique is a secondary type of gno p . ?7. The language of a primitive peonle does not make it oosrible for them to communicate with each other as well as the language of more civilized people. The more complex a society is, the more progressive it is. °9. All societies are ethnocentric. 30. A dichotomy is not usually an accurate system of classification in most areas of human interaction. 31. Eating three meals a day is an example of the mores in the U.S. 'U;'. When the social sanctions break down, social d iserga&lzatlon becomes wi despread. 33. T’here arc three strata of society: low, middle, and. high. tl. The mores define what is right and what is wrong for a Bociety. i- . There is a widespread d«Targ‘ - ir Amcri can society that d i screeancles between social norms and actual behavior should be ell!rated. 180 3 6 . Vertical mobility is a term used to indicate movement, -from one stra­ tum to another. 37. Religion is an institution which functions tc Integrate ends. 78. Ethnocentrism may ve considered as a cause of war. 7''. It has been established that there are ru instincts in man. U-'«. Since there is growing mobility in America we car. expert the eventual disappearance of classes. M. Longevity of members of rural and urban copulations differ. Communal societies have strict, formalized laws. U7. There is no basiB in fact for most of cur stereotynee. Uli. There are two Tines of culture: material and non—material. he;, spaf.g to face" association is characteristic of secondary groups but not of publics. K.TTT.TIPLE CHOICE: (FicT the best answer.) U6 . "Cultural lag" refers to: (Ogburc) 1. A differential rate of development of different -Darts of the cul­ ture. P. A culture which lags behind in its cultural development. 7. An individual who lags behind his culture in cultural advancement. U. None of these. h7. An 1. P. 7, institution is: An organicat ion such as a noon-farm, jail, college, or business. Something well established. A grouping of mores, laws, folk-way*, etc. around a certain function. None of these. U 8 , Religion is considered by Durkrheim as an institution whose function is: 1. To explore the unknown. P. To bind men together. 7. To serve as an "opiate of the masses.H &•. None of these. Uf, So thoroughly have norms become a part of human existence that they are to a high degree internal!zed. This orocess leads to what we call: 1. Primary emotions. P. Instincts. 7. The "self." u. Social Darwinism. 131 50. An 1. ?. 3. "opinion* (as used A strong belief on A strong belief on A general ^roupint None of these. in "public opinion" ) is: a specific issue. a general issue. of beliefs. 51. Ecoloey is a branch of sociology wh 1 ch deals with* 1. Primitive societies end Vow they evolve. ?. Man's adaptation +o physical srace. Economic patterns and institutions. 4. None of these. 5?. Prejudice against religious or r&oi.-.l ilverities is us-rally related to 1. Social position. P. Amount of education. 3. Intellectual rigidity, insecurity. 4. None of these. 53. The fullest freedom for the i-.divi IuhI ir. a con- >1 -*>: in*1ant rial so cl eiy is found: 1. Under conditions of anarchy. P. Under lalgsc? fa ire caoItAllen and Jeffersoni.anDemocracy. 3. In a society whose structure balances the ri.yhts of t -ie individual against the obligations he lias to respect tue riyht r of others. U. Under a two party system, as In tie U.S. p4. E co no m i c no war in the U n i t e d States today rests prlma-l '.y in*. 1. Those who own property. Those in managerial positions. 3 . froverrment. U. Labor unions. 55• Denominations differ r ron cults in: 1 . Adjustment to the secular world; personal nature ofrel l,-riouo e~~ perlance. ?. Sincerity. 3. Palth. H. None of these. 56. Effective collaboration within an industrial olant is determined: I. f*. 3. U. Primarily by the formal orynni nation of the olant. Primarilv bv the top "leadership. More by the informal relationships than the formal. Py the strength of the union. 57. The values and institutions of a society: 1. May themselves lead to social di soryaniratlon, if access to them ig not erml, . A**.Involve-: J <*<■>«'in ' •1 1 ?r>h 1 . . Arc not i ”')ort=i:’ !*. 1 . :iisorvarii sat ton. h . ITo ’ie o ♦ to e so. 18? Sociology is a: (Sorokin) 1. Generalizing science. ?. Individualizing science. ?. No science at all. ‘4 . A pseudo— aci ence. A nu'blic is usiiallv defined na: 1. A group of any si ze in which the members are conscious of a cotanon interest. All people in a country. 8 . All who follow a common leader, k. None of these. In Burgess* discussion of the growth of a city, the zone with the most crime, vice, and, new social and artistic movements is: 1. The business zone, h. The zone of transition. ‘5i. Workingmen* s dwellings, including Negro. Cormmt er *s zone. 5. None of t^ese. Tne pattern of college dating is considered bv nary sociologist a as: 1. A conflict situation to establish status. ?. Designed to end in marriage. _5. An express ion of "purmy love." U. None of these. Personalhostility becomes focused on groups when: 1. There is contact, competition, ani a difference in values between frrouDt, if the group can be identified. ?. Personal hostility can't be exoressed against Individuals. 8 . A group causes hostility, h. None of these. Statistics on crime are misleading si nee th*-' a »*e: 1 . Based on a biased sample which excludes many crimes h"r businessmen, ?. "Fixed" by croogod politicians and policemen. 3. Crime is a value judgment. k. They are not usually misleading at all. A union to be successful must: 1. Be a monopoly, or nearly so. ?. Make strong drive for membership, have program based on wants, make concrete achievements, have militant leadership. 8 . Work in close cooperation with management. Use the strin" V e r j i o n , P l i i l l i p , S c o r e V a l u e s , Kou,-i t o n - M i f f l i n , L e v f o r ' ; , 1 9 3 1 * Sheet i'or Study of A n n u a l R e r o r t ( s ) o f t u e Commi t t e e o n t h e J u s e _ o f _ E n g l i s h ~b.v S t u d e n t s , R r . r v r . r d U n i v e r s i t y , Crn' : r i d . j e , M a s s . , 1 9 1 6 —5 2 . J* h. B e l l , Hu... h M. , A d . i u s t n e n t I n v e n t o r . - / : U n iv e rsit" P re ss, Palo A lto, C a lif ., ituf n.d. nt Porr. i , S t a n f o r d 5. B e r d i e , R a l p h ; P r e s s - e l , P a u l ; : nd K e l s o , P a u l , " R e l a t i v e V a l i d i t y o f t u e 9, e n d L S c o r e s o ' t h e ACE P s y c . . o l c i '*• 1 ~:y i l n o i o u , M E j j u c a t i o n r l a n d P s y c n o l o , i ce. 1 Me; s u r - u r . e n t 1 1 : 3 0 3 - 1 2 ( W i n t e r 1 9 5 1 ) . 6. Bio o n f i e l d , Loon, r d , La n ~ u - e , H e n r y n o l t , 7. B l o o m f i e l d , Leonard., L i n g u i s t i c U, U n i v e r s i t " o f C k i c r y o P r e s s , A spects Chic- Lev; Y o r k , of .Spence, o, 1939. 1935* vol. 1, no. Boei c, L . G. , T u e P r r c t i c a h i l i t ; . o f . a . A c t i v i ty P r o, rr y i n _ Bn.. . l i s . . i n t . .e U u e r E l e m e n t,-■r y G r a c e r , o f p. jr e p f P t n e n t a l S c i . o o l , u n - p u b l i s h ­ ed M.3. . t f . e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f C i n e i n n ? t i , 1953 . Bond. , G i l b e r t L . , "A P o s t w a r P r o ;r"ir. f o r th*_- R e n e : i i a l - S n , l i s n S t u e n t , » C o l l e- e En. l i r n ? : P e - . - ? 0 ( Ua ; l A t O . . 3 r i ( L - ‘V v u , . P.W ., Lp.ic o f Mo d e : r. .1.; s i c s , B r u : m ■. ei*, .■*. '.. , o o—o’ i j * o .. ■ — Sr - eec}: r r . ' ' ’r i t i n . ', 11 Br... 1 i s h J o u r r.r 1 h; 1* - , -■*'■ circ won 3 -i’ ' l— h 1. etin or h.e_ 3_ney of E.., 1 j s 1: in E >* ,oi;v tions . ;/ q i . a*nts in s.; v Co lie. -;0, Hr -vr- rd U n i v e r s i t y , C.-r bf i - 1 . e e , M a s s . , l - ; 3 9 . 3? Ca sr-i r e r , Jr..r t, " iY.e I n l i u e n c e o l —* u.* . e u p o n ...e U s v e l ' j p . n ri.t o f S c 1 r.: t i f i c T h e n ' i t . " J o u r n r 1 o f P h i l o s e r .-.y 395 3 0 9 - 2 ? ( J u n e 19U2). If . Cn r c : . , Review M. 3: V. "A r u '•7'o (J- non m L'i 1 5 ) u... Sriioo 1 1&6 15. G-ark, . V., Ox— Bow I n c i d e n t , R a n d o m H o u s e , New Y o r k , 1910. 16. Coopera tive Sn,r::isx. T e s t , Tes t C—2: Re: l i n g Comrrehension, Form_X» a n e r i c n u C o u r e : 1 or. :-r ; e c ti tl". * T e s t S e r v i c e , New fork, 17. C o u l t e r , N e l l i e : r l H i g h t o w e r , .. s t e l l e , " L e t ' s S o c i a l S t u d i e s 31: l e v , 17 1 -2 (K e r e n l k G ) . Wor k To, e t r . e r , " 18. Crisholm , Institute 19. C r o w d e r , K orrr.cn A . , S c ie n c e s ," ETC. 1 : 30. D a l y , G r a c e ; B r u y ^ e r , Hr r r i o n y a n d A n d e r s o n , K e . n e t h , " A m e r i c a : An r i m e n t , " J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Res ea, r c i i 9 1 : "' 77—9 ( N o v . I 9A 7 ) . 31. D avis, ./'. ” ow \ 23. l - d u c a t i o r . 7 2 : <1 -1.3— 508 ( K a r e n 1 9 5 7 ) , Com m unication S k i l l s Number). 29. Edvards, 25. Flesch, Rudolf, T n e A r t o f HI.- ir. ?1 c r . - h , Rr l-'l:’, A p -rt F r a n c i s 1 . , I n t r o d u c t o r y L e c t u r e s on G e n e r n l o f G e n e r a l S e m a n t i c s , C h ic a g o , 1991. Kingsley, " S p e c u l a t i o n s on K e t h o d o l o , y i n 2 9 1 - 5 7 ( S u u - e r I 987 ) . Human So c i e t y , ^ c r l _.- . , ...v rr.., , J : h n , D- moo r ; cy - r : E d u c a t i o n , M a c m i l l a n , A llen, (Racket t, T alk, Harper, F r a z i e r , A ■e x a n d A d a n s , 5. T. , "A F u s i o n Science, " S o c j a 1 1 t u ' i e s ;y : 3-9 3—7 ( D e c . °b. F rie s, Charles, York, 1990. 79 . F r i e s , 1 .>5 2 . Fries, 1 >9 j, Charles, Tr.e S t r u c t u r e C . v r l e s , Te.- c u i r . ■1 # y r -; .-r. f C--; r ; -- r , j*?d* l ^y 1 Fromm, A e r i c a n F Y y l i s h Gr -.r T-r c h i y. 1917 . is.ue new Y or k , new Y o r k , of E n r l i s n 1 t y. j. editor, ly9c. ly9-6. New Y o r k , 1999. ml S o c i a l r , D. A t - l e t o u - C e n t u r y , New o f F n: 11 s u , H a . r c . o u r t —B r a c e , o f E n.-.li s h , Geo m e y ' 1 New Y o r k , 0 ‘•'Re.- d a B l e W r i t i n g , H a m e r , 27. tne S o e i - 1 Y. .e r t, St - t i n t i c ; 1 A n a l y s i s , R i n e n e r t , See.antics, New- Y o r k , n r , Ann ^ r b o r , M i e n . , t . - r E n ^ l i ? - - L; r u - , e , T n o r a s n e l s o n , ric, F s c a r e j _ r x ' " < ■ 'o m , R iir-r- rt, - vr-', I,'-!. m 33* 3h. G e i s t , R o b e r t , a n u n t i t l e d s t u d y o f t h e p r o b l e m o f xr.n r o v i n , , t h e w r i t i n y o f u n r e r o l , . s s n e n a t 35 c o l i e e s a n d u n i v i r s i t i e s , A l l C o l l e g e E ' u c ; t i o n r l h c s e f . r r i . C o m m i t t e e , Miohi. ,, *.n S t a t e C o l i e . e , i n s t L an sin g , M id ;., 1932. G e t t i nt. Y o u r I d e n ». y i c r p s s _ T n r o u ^ n \ . r i t i r y , xi " m m + o — « cj v ; • •*- Ij . i *1 -*• ^ ^ -i ■- ^ V -, ,.9 ] ' 'G Q 7 • ->■*-> . *- ' ; L. - _ J ’. »* • iv n u e i r. . no. f o ■ t» > . _ - • (, ' * f . 3 r . Ha c k e 1 1, H e r b e r t , Some C o n t r i b u t i o n s Ma de By An t n r o -po l o x y t o t h e U n d e r s t ; ndi n, - . o ' t h e N a t u r e ; n d F u n c t i o n o f L.* n ,- ~u y e , u n r v . h i i c y d study 1 t h a n e t a t e d b i b l i o ? r ?n h y , c o n y w i t h a u t h o r , Mi chi . , a n S t a t e C o l i e , e , E a s t L a n s i n y , M i c h . , 1931. 30 . K a c k e t t , H erbert, "T .is Business of W ar," M oti v e 12: 5-6 (O ct. 1951). 37. H a ll, R obert A., hew Y o r k , 1 3 5 9 . Le,- v e You r h; n ,u; f »■ A l o n e j , L i n . - u i s. t : c r , I t Acr- f y-':. H a m l i n , M a r y , I u t e y r ; t i o n o f F k - l i s h C o m p o s i t i o n w i t h C t n e r S u b , i e c t s , u n n u b M s n e d M. A. t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y o f K a n s a s , 1 9 3 7 • 39. Harin,-.. , D o u u l a s G. , " C u l t x i r a l C o n t e x t s t i o n , " Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f S p e e c h 3.?: • - J ■ I !‘1-'' , ' • ■» » A., f ”' r r i -> w'' A*♦G I>^ f 1; -,ew f o r ' h , 1 9 3 5 . ■>: rvi - Iif U3 1 *. P i n A c t i o n , o f T h o u y u t and Communica­ l c l - ? ? ( A r r i l 1 ,'?1 ) . -**1 ' ’- ' t o . -— ISJTl. ^ H-> r c o . r t - n r a c e , hew f o r ’. ; , hi. H p y a k a w r » S. hi. i v y V; vr., S. I . , i-lr. 1j. U' 1 P ir; T i i o y ;. t ; x . . - i C t . o j i , a V- ; . y v , 1 , ’• . I. . , . h-3. H i a t t , L y n n n R. , T:.e E f f e c t o f C o - o r e r t i o n H a b i t s , urn v u b l i s h e d M. A. t n e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y hh. .x r ^ o - ' - t - .r: 1 ih j . H i n c n r , a n , F l o r e n c e M. , "An E x p e r i e n c e J o u r n a l 27: 7 3 9 - 6 7 ( h o v . 1 3 3 6 ) . in i n U e v e x o n i n r . La n f ,u<-:.ye o f Chi c * ? o , 1 9 2 5 . In te y tion," Enxlish h 3. H o b b e t t , M.* r y A. , T h e R el.- t i v e w . u - . l i t y o f _ V. r xt t e u r r o i u c t s _ i n y-, ^ . c Po- C o n t e n t S u b j e c t s , u n n u b l i s u e d t n e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f I o w a , l k . 33. 26. H o b e n , J o h n , "En.- l i s h C o m n u n i c a t i o n a t Co i r ;• t c U n i v e r s i t y , " i n McGra t h , 7 .* r l ( E d . ) Com:iu n i c - t i o n i n G e n e r - 1 E a ^ c a j u ^ c n , V i - - i n n n r o w n , i / u b u c n e , I ov;n , I k h y , T'*r . x 7 . 3 - 9 . 18 6 9-7. H o y t, F r a n k l i n S . , "The P l a c e o f hr- mnar i n t a e E l e m e n t a r y c u l u m ,11 T e a c h e r 1_ s _ . C o l l e g e , . R e c o r d ?: 9 o 7 - 5 G 0 ( N o v . l y O c ) . 9-d. " I n s t r u c t i o n i n E n . y l i s h i n 3 n r. . i n e e r i n t- C o l l e g e s , " J o u r n a l >Jnr,i n e e r l n t ' j! u c r t . o n yjl S u n n i e n e n t 1 —1 0 2 ( J u n e I 980 ) . ^9« Jestersen, 1909. O tto, u Modern .lir-'iisn Or- n m n r, 50 . J e s n e r s e n , C tto, Th e P h i l o s o p h y o f _O n u u a r , K. Ho'; t , .-leideloer,-;, > v Y ir':, 1. J o h n s o n , L. l v . , " T h e E f f e c t o f I n t e J o u r n j 1 25* 7 3 7 - 9 9 ( N o v . 1 9 3 8 ) . 5°. Johnson, W endell, "G eneral 9 : 2 7 5 - 8 9 (Summer 1 9 9 7 ) . 53. Johnson, Wendell, 59. Kennedy, A rthur, 55. K r e t c n , D a v i d m J C r u t c h f i e l d , Rich,* r d , T a e o r y _ e n d ^ P r o b l e m s o f i a l P s y c h o l o g y , Lc . . ra' -’- H i l l , f ° ' - ‘~>r ., 1 9 9 8 . Soc­ 56. K u o e r , 0 . P ' r e d e r i c , Ku d e r P r e f e r e n c e R e c o r d , s e a rc h A ss o ~ i* t e s , Chicnuo, ly9o. Re­ 57- Lonae, P a u lu s , 9: 9 7 9 - 8 (Nov. 56. L r u - , -c i n Ge n e r a 1 _ E _ ’tc* t i o n , S . Am 1 e t o n - C a t u r y , New d o r k , 1 ; 3 9 . C o m m i s s i o n o n Seconury S c n o o l C u r r i c u l u m , P r o g r e s s i v e E d u c a t i o n Senrr t i c s tion W inter, of 51. P eople in r C. C urri­ E n . - i s h Us,y;e. o n A c h i e v e m e n t , " jin,- l i s a a n-.l t h e .y.u/ n d r i e s , Science rarner. " Vha . t P r i c e h n - l i s h ? " , J o u r n a l 193:). T e a c h e r , " ETC. New Y o r k , I). A p t . l e t o n - C e n t u r y , 199-6. New Y o r k , P e r s ona 1 , Sc : 1992 . o f Hi,-h e r E d u c a t i o n Associati on. 59. L e e , D o r o t h y -S. , " L i n f u i s t i c R e f l e c t i o n o f W i n t u T n o u y h t , " I n t e r ­ n a t i o n a l J o u r ru-1 o f Amer i c a n L i n _ u i s t i c _ s 1 0 : 1 8 1 - 7 ( O c t . 1 9 9 9 ) . uO. L e e , D o r o t h y L . , "A P r i r d t i v e e n c e 7: 3 5 5 - 6 5 ( 1 9 9 C ) . cl. L e e , J . M . a n d R o o t , E . R. , "An i m e r i i i e r . t i n I n t e g r a t i o n , " C a l i f o r ­ n i a Qu* r t c r l y o_i S e c i n ^ ; r E d u c . - t i e r. 1 0 : 2 9 7 - 5 5 ' ( A r - r i l 1 ->j 5 ) • t?. L e o n a r d , . P . , S o c ia l Stu i-'s System of V alues," "An I n t e g r a t i o n P r o j e c t 71.1—3 ( M»y 1 9 3 7 ) . in . Civics P h i l o s o phy of ,* a d En. l i s h , " Scj- 189 63. L e o n a r d , S t e r l i n g A . , C u r r e n t E n , - l i s h U s a g e . 7:. ; h . Mono .re.-rh No. 1 , I J e t i o n r ] C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f Fn, l i s h , C n i c a g o , 1 9 3 2 . CU. L e s s e r , A l e x ? r / ’e r , can Ant:.ro-nolo ; i s t , v-' ■ Lewin, K u rt, "Croup D e c is io n Tueodore end H a r tle y , Eugene M. I h l t , New f o r k , I 967 . V r • 6c. L e w i s , I -■ C7 . " F u n c t i onr l i s p . i n 37: 3 8 6 -9 3 ( J u l y - M. M. , ‘ t I n f a n t Sneecu: ■ j -j -j • S o c i a l A n t ; i r o r o l o r y , 11 A m e r i ­ C ert. 1935). a n d S o c i e 1 Cu- n. e , " i n Nev' com o, ( I d s . ) , He; d i r n . s i n S o c i a l P s y c n o l o , 330-h4. A Study of the L eg in n in ^s L i n d e s n i t h , A l f r e d a no S t r a u s s , P r e s s , New Y o r k , 1 9 6 9 . Anselm, y. o f Li.n^.Uc; - . e , S o cia l Psyc n o lo Cwi L i n k l e t t e r , C. M. , " R e r o r t o n o n e - t n i r d t i m e t e a m i n g . l o n e i n t n e F o r e s t P r o d u c t s De-nrr t n e n t d u r i n g W i n t e r r m l S u r i n g T e r m s , 1 9 5 2 , " i n A n n u a l R e u o r t , Dep a r t m e n t o f W r i t t e n a n d S r o k e ri E n g l i s h , T h e B a s i c C o l l e g e , v o l . 2, d u p l i c a t e d , M i c h i g a n S t a t e C o l l e g e , E a s t L a n sin g , M ic h ., 1952, up, 33-6. 69. L o k k e , V i r g i l L. man C o m p o s i t i o n : (Dec. 1968). 70. L y m a n , R . L . , S u m m e r 2/ o f I n v e s t i g r t i o n s R e l ; t i n g t o urnmm.*.r , L a n g ­ u a g e a n d Co m r o s i t i t n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o F r - ^ s s , C h i c a g o , 1 9 2 9 - 71. M aelver, H. and Wykoff, G eorge S . , "Double W r i t i n g i n F r e s h ­ An E x p e r i m e n t , " S c h o o l a n d S o c i e t y o h : 837-9 M. a n d P a g e , C. M. , vSojJiety, R inehart, Hew f o r k , 1969. M a l i n o w s k i , Dr *- ni s l a w , " T h e P r o b l e m ->f F l e m i n g i n I r i m i t i v e L a n g ­ u a g e s , " i n G g k n , C. K. a n d R i c h a r d s , I . A . , Tu e MearJL n , ; o f M e a n ­ i n g , tin.reo.i r t - D r - - c e , New Y o r > , 1 9 - 3 , t r . 7 9 6 - j 3 c « 73. M a r c k w r . r d t , A l b e r t a n d W a l c o t t , F r e d , Egrets A b o u t C u r r e n t E n g l i s h U s a j g e , E n g l i s n M o n o g r a m n o . 7 , D. A r r l e t o n - C e n t u r y , h e w Y o r k , 1538 , N a t i n a i C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f u n , l i s h . 7*4. M c G r a t n , E a r l J . Drown, 75. Dubuque, ( E d . ) , Commu n i c a t i o n I o w a , I 969 . M e a d , u e o r g e H. , M i n d , P r e s s , GjiiC; ; o , 1 9 5 6 . 7'- M i l h a u - ' - e r , M i l t o n , jf Communi C' t : m ^eli i n vjenert 1 E -ucn t i on, a n d J 3pc. i _et y, 7 "An k y r • r i m e n t i n Lr n u r .. 2 : n o . 1: o /-Vj (’ ■■■■' y 1 ,• 5 : ) . W illiam Cnicauo . r; i n i t ; . , " J o u r n / 1 190 77. M iller, George A ., Lr n ,tu n a e and Conrmmic; tion. M cG raw-H ill, Hev Y o r k . 1951. 73. M o n r o e , R o b e r t 2 . , ’’T h e V e r b a l F a c t o r ,11 T h e b r a 'u. t e S c h o o l R e c o r d 5? '+—9 ( O c t . 1 9 . 5 1 ) , Cill r> S t a t - ' U : . i v e r r - i t y , C o l u m b u s , G n i o . 79. Moore, Jessie Li '-:1c Cnica o, Y. , F r a c 1 1 c a l Su.-t e s t i o n s f o r Co r r e l t i e r , u n r u b ■it. K . L . L y m a n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c n . o , 1979. '-3. M o r e n o , J. L. , Who Sj-.al l S u r v i v e ? , ITervous and M e n t a l D i s e a s e P u b l i s h i n g . Co mr v - n y , W a s h i n g t o n , 1 9 3 ^ . 11. Ch- r l e s , M orris, Shuns, L.-n,ua,.e :ni jen;.vi o r , t - * 1- •— 1^, lev York, 19^6. Murrell, M i n n i e , o3. th. o5. in. Ve r s u s t n e Integrated t n o ri o f unpublished M.AA thesis, Te- sns T e a c h e r s C o l l s , e , The T r a d i t i o n a l Ton c h i m . > h - n , l i s n . 1939.'* Levi l i e , I k r k , "2n; l i s h as a F o s i t i v e H i ,-.li s h J o u r na l 2 7 : h-'n-9 ( 1 9 3 ° ) . Cyd er ., C.X. nr. Fj.co.ar:h>, r. o •■-, l e w Y o r k , 1 9 7 3 . I.A ., Factor in C o r r el . - t i o n , " T h e M e a n - r , o f Me, l i i t i ; . , b - r ’ o F e n d l e t o n , F a u l S . , T h e I n t e r l c v r t rncn t a l Tea c h i n , , o f hn- l i s h i n C o l l e g e : I t s S x t ° n t , I t s Me t h o d , n : u i_ _I_ts P o s s i b i l i t i e s , a.p u b l i c . . e d P h . D. f c h e s i s, G h i o S t a t e j. i v e r o i t . / , l ^ h l . F e r r i n , For to r . 1 - 1 . ?■- . " v G. , " T e a c x . i m ' h e ; 1 _> t i e ' : H - 5 ( F e b . 1 .♦L5 ) . C7. P e r r i n , I o r t e r G. , W r i t e r ^ F o r e s m a r . , C h i c r ..0 , 1 > h ?. . 1. P i n J e a n , Tne L a i n u a p •.rcce, lev- l o t '.', !/''£. Gui l e a n d a n d Thou .at u r n - ■ ■ j■, " l i ne h i e I n dex of :-9. P o o l e y , F o o l e r , R o b e r t C. , T e a ' - h i m • i n Lew Y o r k , 199-6. 11 lish U s/ve, ..tary t o Fnc.lish, S - o tt— t h e C n i l n , 1. r - o ' - t - H o b e r t C. , " C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f H e s e c r c n t o t n e i l y l i s n , " In.--l i s h J o u r n a l y ? : i 7 : t - < ( h ’ 7' i l 1 1 j. ,a. " t- TeaC:.ln, o: J-. A r . r l e t o n - C e n t u r y , 131 92. F s y c n o l o y l c a l Sxr-mi n r t i o n f o r C o l l e g e j f ^ s h n e n ^ 1 9 9 9 E d i t i o n , A m e r ic a n C o u n c i l on E d u c a t i o n , Educe t i o n n l T e s t i n y S e r v i c e , P r i n c e ­ t o n , Nev.- J e r s e y , 1 9 9 9 . 93. R ed field , Robert, F olk C ulture c a g o P r e s s , C h i c n . o , 199-1. 99. R eeve, F r e d e r i c , "Toward a T n i l o s o u h y 72: 9 9 5 -5 5 (March 1 9 5 3 ). 95. R ichards, I. Y o r k , 13 3 o . A., Interpretation of in the Yu c a t a n , U n i v e r s i t y of Chi­ o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n ,11 E d u c a t i o n Te a c h i n g . , K arcour t-Brr ce, New 96 . S a - n i r , E d w a r d , " L a n y u - i y e , " in E ncyclopaedia of th e S o cial S c ie n ces, v o l . 3 , Mr.cmi 1 i n , New f o r k , 1 9 3 3 . p r . 1 5 5 - 6 9 . 97. S c r a f f o r d , R a l r - h , A S t u d y o f t h e L e s i r a b i l i t : o f C o r r e i a tin-.- E n a — l i s h C o s r o r ' . t i n : " i t : . Sc d a l 3 t u ’ i n s , u n r u b l i s n e d P h . D. t n e s i s , P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e Co H e r e , I 993 . 9b. S h e r - e r - ' , . L - i t h 3 . , D e f e r r i n g . Cr e d i t f o r t r . e I r e s h n a . n Co u r s e i n h i:, l i s h Usn.,-.e, u n p u b l i s h e d M. A. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f C n i c a 0 , I 93 I . 99- S m i t h , D o r a V . , I n s t r u c t i o n i n E u . - . l i s h , h-- t i o n a 1 S u r v e y u f S e c o n d - r y E d u c a t i o n , Mono, r a r h n o . ? 0 , U. S . I r i u t m O f f i c e , W a s h i n . . t o n , D. C. , 1933. 100. Sni th, School W illi; n A., a n -’ S o c i - t y " C o r r e l a t i o n o f E n - " I i s n find •' j: ~~~j ( M a r c h 1 >-<3 -)• 101 . S t u r t e v * . i i t , tne - f a r I ’. , An I n t r o i u c t i o n t o L i n, p i s t i c U n i v e r r i t y P r e s s , L e v n.- v c n , C o n n . , 1 9 9 ? . Social Stur i e s , " S c ie n c e , Yale 102. Thorpe, L ouis; C lark , W i l l i s and T ie ( s, E r n s t, C a l i f o r n ia T e s t of P e r s o n a l i t y : A P r o f i l e o f P e r s o n a l y u i d ...Soci;_ 1 A d j u s t m e n t ( A d u l t s ) . C a l i f o r n i a . T e s t B u r e a u , L o s An. e l e s , 11. d . 103. V o s e . R u t h M. , C o o p e r a t i v e Te n c n i n . . o f f f n . - l i s h , i n _ t h e S e c o n d a r y . S c h o o l , u n p u b l i s h e d M. A. t n e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 1 9 3 5 . 199. Whorf, h enyanin Lee, ? e r ' 10 c 1 .." t t ’ t e , 105. W h o r f , B e n j a m i n L e e , " S c i e n c e a n d L i n . u i s t i c s , " T e c im o l ot ,y R_e v i e v h h : 709-31 ( I 9I 10) ; a l s o i n l o u r Ar t i c l e s o n Me ta. 11 n jfu i s t i e s , s u p r a , pp. F o u r A r t i c l e s o n Me t a l i r h . o . t 01 S t-' t e , Wa r.:.. u i s t i c s , Foreiyn t );" , i d . 1'-1. 3—2 . 4 152 1 0 6 . Wilson, Logan and Kolb, William, Sociolo leal Analysis. Harcourt— Brace, New York, 1949. 10 ?. Written and Smoken English SyllAbus, Michigan State College Press, East Lansing, Mich., 1949. 108 . Wykoff, George S. "Freshman Comnosition Without Class Attendance," School and Society 55s 276-80 (March 1942). 109. Wykoff, George S., "The Relation of a Knovrledge of Grammar and Punctuation t:> Writing," Educational Administration and Supervis­ ion 3 1 : 335-93 (Oct. 1945). 110 . Young, Kimball, Social Psychology. F. S. Crofts, New York, 1947.