A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BASIC COLLEGE GRADES
AND EFFORT-INTEREST—ATTITUDE RATINGS
F OR LOW A B I L I T Y STUDENTS

By
Leonard S. Laws

A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of
Michigan State College of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Higher Education
1953

,1

SfUDY OF iLhjIC COLJ.LGl GJUD:J3

j i i »T) of: 'uht-i:jt7.7j.

iT-^Tr-iTTro:.-; -u i'ilg s

fu r

l o \:

Ab II.ITY STUD'hiTS

By
Leonard

Ar

-3. L-v’s

SThhCl'

Submit ted to the school of flrr.dur.te tudiea of
i,lchi;;an State College of Agriculture and
iw. lied science in
rti/.l fulfillment
of the requirement? for the decree of
, h

*»

*

•

^ i

\
* J .

'I

s '*

i r*

; •

Vi V1

he.. * r t i n t of higher Lduc'.tl^n
1952

roved

Till3 .study ■r•.g

,1'iMarlly concerne d ’/Itil the estab­

lishing of ...ass— fail j o i n t s

lr. the grading of bn.3 lc

College -tuclents on a iiusls o f
lo*--anility students.

the effort being made by

The g e n e r a l iiy .othesi : grogosed

by tne Basic College 'v:ucr t l o n .l Fe search Co. J-.ittee was
that “among a grou;;

of

.student

, all low in ability,

effort .should be a s i g n i f i c a n t
t.;o.;e

factor differentiating

ho ;"asa f r o m those aaio fail,"
The low ability .grou;

who receive.' lo .- scores on
can Council on

aaa

c omposed of laO freshmen

the

19^9 - d ition of the „mieri-

Education P s y c h o l o g i c a l dxaminution wuring

the Fall auarter,

19i?d o r i e n t a t i o n grogr&m .-'.net who failed

to increase tiiwir score a

r-'Ciaoly on a re-test.

tion relative to tiie at\' ienta'
means of question.*'. ire • sent

tne stuaents,

bach

twice during t.ie

quarter.

The study w a s

These

the B a s i c

and

to

f i r st— q u a r t e r

College

ere Ba.^ic 1 1 1 , f i r ? t

e^uence.

in the same housing units

i n s t r u c t o r rated his

restricted,

Communication Bk ills,
icience

tar- students themselves,

arm to in a t - u c tor a having the students

in t a lr cla- es.

uel.ng offered oy

:tu::yinc; - as obtained by

to

to .'.ori.itory asoi tunts l i v i n g

Inform-

in

basic

luring f a l l

tudents

subjects
term.

a y ear* s s e q u e n c e
ldl,

first

in

In tiie B a t u r a l

booled ratings of the students*

effort were obtained

and correlntiona net -een the pooled ratings and grades
received in Basic 111 and Basic lbl were commuted.

There

•an such a weak relationship between the grades and pooled
effort rs,tings that it was not possible to establish the
desired p a s s — fall points.

Comparisons of the effort rat­

ings iunde by the various observers

suggested that they

have little in common and might be too crude for discrim­
inating b e t wee n passing and failing

stuaents.

fined instruments are recommended for future
There

hore r e ­
studies.

seemed tu be little relationship- b e t w e e n the

greaictlun by the American Council on

education psychol­

ogical hxamlnation and the grn.dea tiie students received.
,.any capable
grou.

-

stuuentr

~tu.i --11 1 is

iio - ere not in unnger of failing re­

gardless of effort.
if future

'ere included in the lo* ’ ability

Better

studies of till - type are to

Tiie bo.sic College
structors*

succeed.

nas a general policy that:

‘•In­

grades and exomin tion grades should meaning­

fully su ;ple; /mt,
-.-Con-i.

r- iiotion v;il3 be necessary

ur. u a

such m--anlngf ul

rather

of tuls

thr n duplicate each other."

stu g

to investigate

-nether

u ..le.antstlon I ” be i n - v i d e i i c e d .

Investigation utI3 is.ed v. tings on the

students*

A

This

general

attitude and ratings on tne students'

ability that

•ere made by the basic 111 ana basic lbl instructors.
It furth-.r utilized the

students*

stated interest in

the respective courses,
Tiie evidence

indicates that there might be m e an­

ingful

supplementation ui t h regard to factors involved

in the

-tudents'

of instructors*

general attitude,

Judgments c.s to students*

course requirements tder- n

more extensive

in the case

ability to raeet

rc to be su p;.-lamentation

out not n---.nin.gful su;•rler.i-ntnticn.
til t

Houever,

It 1- recommended

study oe un'ertnhen to discover

aerein the in- t r u e t o r s • grades might more meaningfully
su; pies.tent final examination grades.

- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks
to Dr. Walker H. Hill for having consistently and gen­
erously given himself completely to the careful consid­
eration of problems which arose in connection w it h this
study.

His suggestions have been an invaluable aid in

the development and writing of this dissertation.
He is also greatly indebted to Dr. Mllosh Muntyan
whose cooperation and encouragement have made this study
possible,

and whose constructive criticisms have greatly

improved the quality of this thesis.
Special mention is deserved by Dr.
Dr. Vernon G. Grove,

Cecil V. Millard,

and Dr. Harry Sundwall for their

kind guidance and helpful

suggestions.

Grateful acknowledgment is made for the cooperation
of Dean C. E. Erickson,
D. Bagwell,

Dr. Paul L. Dressel, Prof. Paul

and Dr. Chester A. Lav/son.

Their approval

and support greatly facilitated the gathering of data
necessary for this study.
The author is grateful to Dr. Willard G. Warrington
for his helpful suggestions relative to statistical tech­
niques and to Dr. Robert A. Jackson for pertinent data
that he generously supplied.

-2Slncere thanks are extended to the many Individuals
who supplied the data - the Instructors In the Depart­
ments of Communication Skills and Natural Science,
dormitory assistants,
in this study.

and the

the

students who p a r t i cipated

Their friendly cooperation was vitally

necessary and greatly appreciated.
The author would have been unable to finance his
doctoral program,

including this study,

had he not re­

ceived the graduate assistantshlps and tuition scholar­
ships that have been so generously bestov/ed by Michigan
State College.

For these grants-in-aid he will be forever

grateful.
This dissertation is dedicated to Janet Owen Laws
whose patience,

confidence,

and devotion h a e f o s t e r e d

the continuous concentration necessary to the successful
completion of this study.

- VITA Leonard Stewart Laws
candidate for the degree of
Doctor of E d u cation
F inal Examination,
Dissertation:

May 20, 1953*
Mor rill Hall

2:00 p.m. R o o m 201,

A Comparative Study of B asic College
Grades and Effort- I n t e r e s t - A t t i t u d e
Ratings for Low A b i l i t y Students

Outline of Studies
Major Subject:

Higher Ed u c a t i o n

Cognate Area:

Mathematics

Biographical Items
Born,

December 29,

Undergraduate
Graduate

Studies,

Studies,

Experience:

1917,

Pocasset,

Oklahoma

Willamette University,
1935-1939

Leland Stanford Jr. University,
1939-1941
Unive rsity of Minnesota, 1941-19^2
Cont. 1945-1946
Mic higan State College, 1947-1948
Cont. 1952-1953

Teaching Assistant, Stanford University,
1939-1941, Teaching Assistant, U n i v e r ­
sity of Minnesota, 1941-1942, Instruc t­
or, University of Minnesota, 1942-1945,
Assistant Professor, Un iversity of
Minnesota, 1945-1947, Graduate Assistant
M i c higan State College, 1947-1948, Assis
tant Professor, U n i v ersity of Minnesota,
1948-1952, Graduate Assistant, Michigan
State College, 1952-1953.

Member of Kappa Delta Pi

TMbiE OF CG.u T E N T d

CHAPTER
I
II
III
IV
V

PAGE

INTRODUCTION

...................................

1

DEFINITION AND SELECTION" OF LOW-ABILITY
S T U D E N T S ........................................

16

MEASU RABILITY OF THE V A R I A B L E S ..............

24

DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENTS AMD PROCEDURES

31

..

METHODS OF SUMMARIZING AMD ANALYZING
THE D A T A .......................................

41

VI

GENERAL FINDINGS AND DEL A T I O N S H I P 3 ..........

oO

VII

CONCLUSIONS A.'D RE CGK2EMDATIO N3 ..............

94

SELECTED B I B L I O G R A P H Y ........................

105

APPENDIX

107

.......................................

TABLE OF TABLES

TABLE
3 — 1

5 - 2
0 - 1

T.-3
- a
6 - 5

- 6

- 8

- 9

PAGE
Basic 121 Instructors' R a t ings of Students'
Effort to meet Basic 121 R e q u i remen ts
(Combined Ratings) .............................

^+9

Basic 111 Instructors' Ratings of Students'
.attitude Toward 3asic 111 ......................

^9

Percentage Distributions of Grades R e c e i v e d
by Low-Ability Students and by All Freshmen
in Ba sic 111 and Basic 121 During Fall
quarter, 1952 ...................................

61

P o oled Effort Rating Scores and Course Grades
R e c e i v e d in Basic 111 and Basic 1 2 1 .........

67

Basic 111 Effort Ratin g Scores and Grades
XIeceived in Basic 111 ..........................

62

Basic 121 Effort Rating Scores and Grades
R e c e i v e d in maslc 121 ..........................

oy

Kean Scores and Standard Deviations for Groins
of Lovj-Ability Students Cl assified as LowEffort and High-Effort .........................
70
Correlations of Effort Ratings by tiie Various
Observers on the Same Lcw-Abillt; Students ..

r-* n

7

Frequency D1strioutions for I n s t r u c t o r s '
Ratings of Students' Efforts and Instructors'
Grade ............................................

76

Correlations of Instructors' Ratings of Stud­
ents' General Attitudes Toward Basic 111 and
Basic 121 with Instructors' Marks and Final
Examination Scores .............................

78

Correlations of I n s t r u c t o r s ' Ratings of LovAblllty Students' Anility to Keet the R e q u i r e ­
ments of the Course v/lth Instructors' Marks
and Final Examination Grades in Basic 111 and

TABLE OF TABLES
(continued)
PAGE
Correlations of I n s t r u c t o r s 1 Ratings of
High-Ability Stude.its' Ability to Meet the
Requirements of the Course v/lth Instructors'
Marks ana Final Examination Grades in Basic
Sb111 and Basic 1 2 1 ..........................
Tiie Means and Standard Deviations for Ratings
Indicating the Interest in Basic 111 and in
Basic 121 Stated by Low-Ability Men a.nd LowAbillty W o m e n ...............................
C5
Tiie Means and Standard Deviations for Course
Grades Given in Basic 111 and Basic
121 to
Lo -v *^O i . t uj .*Cii .n xU x-^ >'•**jiJi J—
..0 - . 1
. » •• « • • •

O

Means and Standard Deviations for Ratings and
Scores R eceived bj Lo..--Ability Men and Lovlllty i.omen. ...............................

o7

The Means and Stand, *r 1 Du v letlone f o r Scores
Received jy Lo\;-Abil 1tj h:.: and Lo\;-Aoility
.<
...e . i in O ' c.^ . ^ 3 o ^ -i. a . n . ■ . *. c". . e . *— .
l

j

The Means end Standard Deviations for Rating'
of Student e * Ability on lib Lo;; and 2b hi.yhwj o ^u e ..c*s o j
ac.5 1c al.^_ and ansic
90
121 I n s t r u c t o r s .............................
Means and Standard Devi.-it ions of Instructor s 1
Scores dive;, to 117 Lov;-Aoiltty Students and
23 Miyh-Ability Students by Their Basic 111
and Basic 121 Instructors.................
91
Correlations Between End of ^ma'te-r Scores
and Low-Ability S t u d e n t s ’ Stated Interest in
Basic 111 and Basic 1 2 1 ...................
93

TABLE OF HI S T O G R A M S A1TD GRAPH

131CORAH
1

PAGE
Frequ ency Dist r i b u t i o n of Ratings by LowAb l l i t y Students on Their Own Study Effort...

2

3

63

Fr equency D 1str ibutions of R a t i n g s by
Dormitory Assis tants 011 Study Effort of LowA b i l l t y S t u d e n t s ..................................

63

Fre quency Dis t r i b u t i o n of Effort Ratin gs on
Low-Abil ity Students by Their Basic 111
Instructors (Combined R a t i n g s ) ...................

64

F r e q uency Distributio n of Effort Rati ngs on
L o w - Ability Students by Their Basic 121
Instructors (Combined R a t i n g s ) ...................

64

Frequency Distrloutions of P o oled Effort
S c o r e s ..............................................

65

id

1
I

M

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
M i c higan State College has traditiona lly emphasized
technical training.

E s t a b l i s h e d in 1855 as the first of

the state colleges of agriculture,
visions of the Morrill Act,
colleges.

it became,

u n der p r o ­

one of the nation*s land grant

It has tried through the years to meet the needs

of its people and to provide them w i t h a useful education.
The original Agriculture College of M i c higa n in­
cluded “P o l itic al E c o n o m y 1' and “Natural Philosophy" in
its curri culum along wit h surveying and leveling and the
more

strictly agricultural

understanding,

subjects.

It stressed the use,

and appreciation of the English language.^-

In recent years,

under the inspiring leadership of

President J o h n A. Hannah, M i c higan State College ha s r e c ­
ognized the n e e d for giving all undergraduate

students a

greater b r e a d t h of educational experience than that a t tai n­
ed in the prerequ isite courses of the various technical
fields.

As a result of this recognition,

and consistent

w i t h its established tradition of p r o v i d i n g a useful edu­
cation to meet the needs of its people,

M i c h i g a n State

•^Dressel, Paul L. and Others.
Comprehensive Examinations
in a P r o g r a m of General E d u c a t i o n . M i c h igan State Coll­
ege Press, East Lansing.
19^9.
165 pp.

-2College d e v e l o p e d a p r o g r a m of general education having
the following b r o a d objectives:
“The f o l l owing outcomes are cons idered not only use­
ful, but also fundamen tal to a sound educational experience
for all M i c h igan State College students:
write and speak clearly,

concisely,

to be able to understand,

a nd effectively,

appreciate,

ically the w r i t t e n an d spoken word;

to be able to
and

and evaluate crit­

to know something of

the biological a nd p h y s i c a l sciences,

not merely f r o m the

prof e s s i o n a l ' s viewpoint, but more p a r t icular ly in respect
to their impacts on everyday living and thinking;
an Interest in, and. a knowledge of, personal,
ial,

and civic affairs;

to have

family,

soc­

to be acq u a i n t e d w i t h the facts of

history, par t i c u l a r l y the hist ory of selected p e r iods most
significant in relation to the w o rld of today;
appreciation of the cultures,
in literature,

music,

past a nd present,

to have an
expressed

and art.

The Basic College,

the administrative unit responsible

for the general education p r o g r a m of Michigan State College,
was organized in 1 9 ^

to help all students of M i c h i g a n State

College attain the objectives stated above.
organized,

As originally

it Included seven departments which were reo r ­

ganized into four departments b e g inning with fall quarter,

2 Ibid, p.l

-31952,

the p e r i o d of this study.

The four organizational

areas are now:

Communication Skills,

Social Science,

and Humanities,

cerned wit h two of these,

Natural Science,

This study will be con­

namely:

C ommunication Skills

and Natural Science.
Michigan State College recognizes the need in presentday society for h i g h l y trained specialists, bu t at the
same time feels that there is a core of educational ex­
perience that should be

shared by all

students,

regard­

less of their special interests.
Howard C. Rather,
has stated:
make

former Dean of the Basic College

"The Basic College P r o g r a m is d e s igned to

sure that no undergraduate at M i c h i g a n State College

follows a specialized p r o g r a m so intensively that in the
end he knows too little of the r e l ation of his own spec­
ialty to other activities and to the needs of society as
a whole.

It is d e s igned to b u i l d specialized training,

where desirable,

on a b r o a d e r foundation.

It is designed

to give each student - whether he be an eventual specialist
or not - the opportunity for knowledge,
ing,

appreciation,

skill,

und e r s t a n d ­

and thinking in diverse ways,

he may develop as a well r o u n d e d individual,
adjustment to changing conditions;

so that

capable of

capable not only of

-Ifrendering service on a Job, but also of utilizing effect­
ively those nonwork,

nonsleep hours that constitute so

important a part of the good l i f e . "3
Dean Rather also pointed out that the students start­
ing this p r o g r a m of general education are b e ing taught by
staff members who are trained and primarily Interested in
general education under an administrative unit that r e c ­
ognizes and promotes good teaching with rewards in salary,
rank,

and professional advancement fully equal to those

granted for research, writing,

or any other educational

activity.
While the total enrollment in the Basic College has
been large,

special effort has been made to keep the

classes small to provide

each instructor an opportunity

for becoming bitter acquainted with his students.
instructors whose ratings are reported in this

The

study had

thirty students or less in their classes.
As the Basic College was originally organized,
students'

the

grades in their Basic courses were determined

solely on a basis of their performance on comprehensive
examinations.
work (Fall,
of study.

3 Ibid, p . 3

These examinations covered the full year's

Winter and Spring quarters)

for each course

The comprehensive examinations were developed

-5cooperatlvely by a committee from the department con­
cerned and an independent Board of Examiners.
While

such an examining and grading system has

much to be said for it,

there has continued to be some

feeling on the part of the faculty that quarter by
quarter grades should be given and that the grade should
be partially determined by the instructor* s appraisal of
the student's ability and performance.

Such a system has

recently been adopted for the Basic College.
quarter,

1952,

the period of this study,

During fall

the instructor's

grade had equal weighting with the final examination
grade in the determination of the course grade.
Under its general policy for the determination of
grades,

the Basic College has listed:
“The instructor's grade will be based
on such evidence as is,

in his Judg­

ment, appropriate and is in accordance
with policies determined by his depart­
ment and/or the dean.
Instructors'

grades and examination

marks should meaningfully supplement
rather than duplicate each other.

-6and
The distribution of term grades should
conform as closely as possible

to the

percentage distribution:
A 7-11

B 25-29

C 45-J+9

D 12-16

F 0-5."

Because the percentage distribution of scores was
arbitrarily determined and because

studies of the actual

distributions of scores Indicated that grading practices
in the Basic College might not be as generous as those in
comparable educational units elsewhere,
present Dean,

Dr, C, E, Erickson,

requested that the Basic College Educational

Research Committee

"give some study to the problem of

assignment of marks with the purpose in mind of arriving
at a plan w h ich might replace the Interim one of assign­
ing marks according to a specified distribution,
The Research Committee first established the most
Important functions or purposes of marks,
sirable qualities of a mark,

the major de ­

and the major bases for de­

termining marks as seen by the faculty of the Basic
College.

It then undertook three essentially different

studies to accumulate evidence upon the problem of assign-

^Baslc College Educational Research Committee.
The Ass­
ignment of Term Marks in the Basic College. Mimeograph­
ed Report.
Michigan State College.
13 numb, leaves.

-7ing term marks.
Each study attempted to answer one of the following
questions:
1.

"Are students In Basic courses working any­
where close to the level which might be ex­
p e c t e d of them In terms of their ability?

2.

How does the distribution of marks given in
Basic courses at M. S. C. compare with dis­
tributions for other freshman and sophomore
courses, b o t h at M.S.C.

and at other similar

institutions?
3.

Is there agreement among Basic College staff
members of a given Basic course as to the
level of achievement which should character­
ize a given letter grade?"-5

In trying to answer the first question,
es were made.

three approach

One was by referring to residence hall r e ­

ports to locate students reported as not working.

"The

assumption on which this approach was b a se d was that stu­
dents of low ability reported as not working should usu­
ally receive D 1s or F*s in Basic courses.

If not,

and

-^Baslc College Educational Research Committee.
The A ss­
ignment of Term Marks in the Basic College. M i m e ograph
ed Report.
Michigan State College.
March 1953.
9
numb, leaves.

-8if the residence hall r e ports on this point hav e m u c h
v a l i d i t y . It w o u ld seem that the average level of a c h i e v e ­
ment Is too low.

One study was made on this point for

students of Spring (Sic
used

(31c

i was rather

) 1951, "but the rating on effort
informal and unreliable.

Hence,

a request was made to the residence hall staff for cooper­
ation on a special report,
1952,

of those

astic effort.

twice durin g the Winter Term

individuals deemed to be making no schol­
These reports were obtained,

analyzed,

and

the results separately r e p o r t e d in a m i m e o gr aphed state­
ment.

Ess e n t i a l l y It was found that there was no m ean­

ingful relation ship b e t w e e n residence hall reports on
work or lack of it b y students and the grades o b t a i n e d in
Basic courses.
MA more exacting study was undertaken during Fall
1952.

This approach Involved the obtaining of reports

f rom residence halls,
ing Center,

f r o m Instructors,

f r o m Improvement Services,

dents themselves as to the effort made.

fro m the Counsel­
and fr o m the stu­
The general hy ­

pothesis was that among a group of students,
ability,

effort should be a significant factor d i f f erent­

iating those who pass f r o m those who fall.

6 Ibid.

all low in

-9The study with w h ich this thesis is concerned u n d e r ­
took to investigate for the Basic College Educational R e ­
search Committee whether a pass-fail point might be es­
tablished for Basic College grading purposes on a basis
of the effort made by students to meet their course r e ­
quirements,

as reported by all available campus sources

of information.
A further purpose of this dissertation is to show what
relationships exist between the marks given in the Basic
111 and Basic 121 courses and factors such as the student's
stated interest in the course,
meet the course requirements,

his apparent ability to
his general attitude toward

the course as appraised by his Instructor,

and the effort

that he put forth to master the material of the course as
judged by various observers.
The Basic College Educational Research Committee
found the major factors listed by Basic

College teachers

as entering into the determination of their grades to be:
1.

"Knov/ledge of the

specific materials

covered in the course.
2.

Proficiency,

Intellectual

skills,

or

abilities listed as course objectives.
3.

The improvement made by a student during
the course.

-104.

A t t itu des toward society,

the course,

or

the instructor d e m o n s t r a t e d b y behavior,
effort,

enthusiasm,

the positive

side,

and cooperation on
or by inattention,

lack of cooperation,

or absence on the

negative s i d e . "7
The Resear ch Committee felt that the first two factors
were more likely to p o s ses s the desirable qualities of
“objectivity,

reliability,

uniformity,

and validity"®

than other factors in the complex that enters into de­
cisions on marks.
This di ssertation is primarily interested in a
factor,

namely the students'

study effort,

that is not

included in the first two considerations listed above.
It has as a secondary purpose

the study of other such

factors that enter into the d e t e r mination of the in­
s t r uctor1 s mark.
One of the specifications for determining grades in
Basic College was:

“Instructors'

grades and examination

73aslc College Educational R esearch Committee.
The A s s ­
ignment of Term Marks in the Basic C o l l e g e . Mi m e o g r a p h ­
ed Report.
M i c h igan State College.
13 numb, leaves.
®Basic College Educational Research Committee.
The A ss­
ignment of Term Marks in the Basic C o l l e g e . M i m e ograp h­
ed Report.
Michi g a n 3tate College.
Ma rch 1953.
9 numb,
leaves.

-11grade a should meaningfully supplement rather than dup­
licate each o t h e r . "9

This study Investigates whether

personal factors such as the student* s stated Interest
In the course,

the instructor's appraisal of the student's

general attitude toward the course,

and the instructor's

opinion as to the student's ability to meet the course re­
quirements enter into the instructor's mark to a greater
extent than they do to the final examination score.
do this,

To

each factor must be studied In turn and many re ­

lationships and inter-relationships b e t w e e n factors must
be examined to discover the composition of the instructor's
mark if that can be found.
Answers to the following list of questions will aid
in determining whether instructors'
supplement"
1.

marks "meaningfully

the final examination grades.

Is the Instructor's appraisal of the student's
general attitude toward the course r e l a t e d to:
(a) the final examination score?
(b) the instructor's end-of-quarter mark?
(c) the student's stated interest in the
course?

^Baslc College.
Policies and Procedures for Term End Ex­
aminations and Term Grades in the Basic College. Unpub­
lished Booklet.
Michigan State College.
13 numb, leaves.

Is the Instructor's estimate of the student's
ability to meet the course requirements re­
l a ted to:
(a) A.C.E.

Test-retest Average of the

student?
(b) similar estimate by an instructor
in another

subject matter field?

(c) a second estimate of the same thing
by the same instructor?
(d) the final examination score?
(e) the instructor's end-of-quarter mark?
(f) the ability level of the student?
(g) the student's apparent attitude to­
ward the course?
(h) the m i d - t e r m grade given by the in­
structor?
Is the Instructor's rating of the student's effort
toward mastering the skills and materials of the
course r e l ate d to:
(a) a second rating of the same factor by
the same instructor about the same
student?
(b) the final examination score?

-13(c) the in s t r u c t o r ’s end-of-quarter
mark?
(d) the number of hours per week the
student states that he has spent
studying the subject?
4.

Is the student's stated interest in the course
related to:
(a) the final examination score?
(b) the instructor's end-of-quarter
mark?
Cc) the ability level of the student?

5.

Are there factors entering into the instructor's
marks that are not meaningful in supplementing
the final examination grades?

Communication Skills
Science

(Basic 111-112-113) and Natural

(Basic 121-122-123) were chosen for the purpose

of this study because they were the two Basic College
courses normally taken by entering freshmen*.

Since the

study was primarily interested in the low-ablllty students
students who might be barely passing or in danger of fall­
ing, and since some of these students might not be enroll­
ed for more than their first quarter,

it was deemed necess

ary to confine the study to the first quarter's work.
Hence,

the study was restricted to Basic 111 and Basic 121

-

14-

Thls proved to be a fortunate choice,

since In those

two areas there Is greater opportunity for the Instructors
to become acquainted •with the inalvidual students than In
either Social Science or Humanities courses where classes
are considerably larger.
More than 3000 students were enrolled in Basic 111
during fall quarter,

1932.

These students were registered

for a one-hour lecture session each week,
many students,

accommodating

and were also registered for four hours

per week in small laboratory sections devoted to discuss­
ion, reading,

writing,

and speaking.

one hundred laboratory

There were more than

sections and the enrollment in each

was limited to thirty or fewer students.
had only one of these

sections,

were in charge of two,

three,

Some Instructors

while other Instructors

or four sections each.

Each

Instructor was assigned by his Head of Department to teach
his particular

sections and that assignment was made with­

out knowledge as to which particular

students might be in

the sections concerned.
The students were

signed into the sections without

regard to which instructors might be in charge.

Thus the

student's interest in the course was not conditioned by
his prior knowledge as to the instructor that he might have.

M

-15The arrangements In Basic 121 were similar to those
In Basic 111 with the exception that the

students spent

two hours per week in the large lecture sections and three
hours per week in laboratory.
While the over-all course might have been the same
for the students enrolled in Basic 111

(or Basic 121), the

particular experience of one student In one section under
one of the teachers would differ in many respects from the
educational experience of another student either in that
same section or in another section and under another in­
structor.

These environmental differences will undoubtedly

influence the findings of this study.

CHAPTER II
DEFINITION AND SELECTION OF LOW-ABILITY STUDENTS
The problem or establishing a pase-fall point by compar­
ing the grades received by low-abllity students who were def­
initely studying to those received by low-abillty students
who were making little effort demanded that extra care be exer­
cised in selecting the low-abillty students.

They should be

students of such low academic ability that they would be in
danger of failing if they made little effort to succeed.
The problem could have been attacked by first discover­
ing which students failed and which barely passed,

then getting

information about the studying they did during the previous
quarter.

This approach wr.s rejected because of the difficulty

in getting reliable information in retrospect.
The method chosen for this study was to first predict
as accurately as possible which students might be low in
academic ability,

then gather information about their study

effort while they were making that effort.

This information

might then be compared to the grades the students received
at the end of the quarter.

The greatest obstacle to this

approach is in obtaining a reliable and valid prediction of
the student’s ability to meet the academic requirements of
the Basic College courses.
Thus far there is no perfect predictive instrument
available for determining academic

success.

The Basic College

-17Educatlonal Research Committee in collaboration with the
3oard of Examiners of Michigan State College decided to use
the 19^9 edition of the American Council on Education Psyc h o ­
logical Examination as the predictive instrument for this
study.

This decision was influenced by the availability of

scores on that particular examination since all students are
required to take it upon entering Michigan State College as
part of the regular admissions procedure.
Although the A.C.E. Psychological Examination is widely
used for indicating college aptitude,

it was decided to be

cautious in selecting the low-abillty group by using it twice
instead of the usual once.

Only the students that remained

lov; on the second administration of the test would be included
in the sample group and called low-abillty.

While it was

recognized that this woul . not guarantee the selection of all
lowest-ability students

(by academic

standards),

it was the

best that could be done at the time with the instruments
available.
The Research Committee realized that by selecting lowabillty students in this manner it might not find a sharp
cleavage of grade between those students who were trying to
succeed and those who were not.

However,

it felt that as a

group the students making a sincere effort should get better
grades than the low-effort students.

-18The range of A.C.E.

scores on all fall quarter,

fresiimen was divided into ten equal units.
approximately O.o of one standard deviation,

Each unit was
under the assump­

tion of a normal distribution being dispersed ±

3

sigma about

As the units were called standard scores,

its mean.

1952

the en­

tire distribution was included in a range of ten standard
scores.

This method of reporting scores in terms of standard

scores wqs common procedure for the Board of Examiners at
Michigan State College.
Those fresiimen receiving A.C.E.

Psychological scores in

the lowest four standard scores of the entire distribution
of scores were requested to retake the examination at a later
date.

This group,

man class,

approximately 26 percent of the entire fresh­

comprised those students having a raw score of 82 or

below on the 19*+9 edition of the A.C.E.
ation.

If their raw scores were

ministration of the same test,

£ 3

Psychological Examin ­

or less on the second ad­

they were considered to be low-

ability students for the purpose of this study.

The low-abllity

group also included thirty students who did not take the
Psycnological test the second time, but whose first scores
were so low that it was very unlikely for them to raise the
A.C.E. Psychological score appreciably on a second administration
One hundred and thirty-nine students were selected by
the test-retest method described above, but nineteen were
eliminated for one of the following reasons:

-191.

It was desired to compare ratings and
grades in Basic 111 with corresponding
ratings and grades in 3asic 121.

Those

students not enrolled lor Doth subjects
were dropped from the study,
2.

It was desired that appraisals of the
student's effort be given by the dorm­
itory assistants.

Students not living

in college dormitories were also ex­
cluded from the study.
3.

Those

students who dropped from college

during the first quarter were also dropped
from the study since it was impossible to
obtain tneir grades and to obtain certain rat­
ings.

While this latter group might have included lowestabillty students or students who quit when they encount­
ered some difficulty,

there were so few (3 ) of them that

excluding them would not noticeably affect the results of
the study.

In fact,

there is no reason to believe that r e ­

sults based upon the original group of

1 3 9

students would

differ significantly from results b a sed upon the

1 2 0

students

remaining in the study.
Any results of this study are to be interpreted in light
of the group composition.

"Low-abillty group" or "low-ability

3

tudentsM ae uaed In this study refer to students who re­

ceived A.C.E. Psychological Examination scores that were In
the lowest four standard scores of the total freshman dis­
tribution and who did not improve that score sufficiently on
a second administration of the same test to be excluded from
the group.
It should be pointed out that these low-ablllty students
did receive grades in Basic 111 and in Basic 121 that statis­
tically were significantly

(5 /» level)

lower than the grades

received by the entire student population taking those courses.
However, the low-ability group Included many students who re ­
ceived C or better grades in the courses concerned.

In fact,

51.3 percent of the low-ability group received C or better grades
in Basic 111 and 41.1 percent did the same for Basic 121.
Tliis emphasizes the fact that while the group as a whole did
more poorly than freshman students generally, many in the group
would be considered good students.

Because of this and other

considerations to be discussed later in this dissertation,

con­

clusions based upon the evidence to be presented might apply
to the freshmen students generally rather than to the low ability group exclusively.
These findings relative to the effectiveness of the A m eri­
can Council on Education Psychological Examination as an in­
strument for predicting first quarter scores or grades are in
general agreement with studies made in other colleges.
of these findings are as follows:

Some

-21Wagner and Strabel"^ report a correlation of 0,22 between
A.C.E. Psychological test scores and the freshman-sophomore
physical science average on

6 5 1

students enrolled at the U ni­

versity of Buffalo during the 1925-1929 period.

They also

report a correlation of 0.40 between freshman English grades
2
and A.C.E. scores for 6 0 I University of Buffalo students.
Q,uaid^ reports a correlation of 0.408 between the first
semester average of college freshman marks at Philips Uni­
versity (1934-1935) and the A.C.E. scores for 14-0 students.
4
Leaf
showed the A.C.E, to be the poorest predictor of
college success of all Instruments used in his study.
Froehllch^ reports a correlation of 0.554 between A.C.E.
scores and grade point averages on the first q u a r t e r ’s work
for 1316 regular students at the University of Wisconsin.
I’Jagner, Mazie E. and Strabel, E.
Predicting Success in
College Physical S ciences. Science Education 19:4-9. 1935*
2

Wagner, Mazie E. and Strabel, E.
Predicting Performance in
College E n g l i s h . Journal of Educational Research 30:694-9.
1937.

-^Quaid, T. D. D.
A Study in the Prediction of College Fresh­
man M a r k s . Journal of Experimental Education 6 :350-75.
1933.
I

^ L e a f , Curtis T. Prediction of College Marks.
Experimental Education
8 : 303-?”
19415.

Journal of

•^Froehllch, Gustav J.
Academic Prediction at the Unlvers it*
of Wisconsin. Journal of American Association of College
PFeglstrars 17:65-76.
October 1941.

-22Brown^ states "— The students below the 20th percentile
on total (A.C.E,)

score would not ordinarily be considered

good college prospects, but almost half of them achieve a
grade point average of C or b e t t e r . 11

He reports correlations

between the A.C.E.

scores and grade point averages in "Quan­

titative Subjects"

such as mathematics and science to be 0.40.

Between the A.C.E.

scores and grade point averages in "Lin­

guistic Subjects"

such as English,

social sciences,

uages, he found a correlation of 0.^4.
tween total A.C.E.

and lang­

His correlation b e ­

scores and total grade point averages on

all subjects turned out to be 0.4Q for the 124 members of his
random sample selected from 1048 entering freshmen in the
Liberal Arts Division of Long Beach City
Osborne,

Sanders,

(Junior)

and Greene 0 found that

College.?

"success in

certain subject matter areas is predicted with markedly
greater accuracy than in other subjects.

The higher r's are

found for the natural sciences and languages."
A further study reported by J a c k s o n ^ indicates a correlation of

0

.L 7 between the A.C.E. and first-quarter grade point

Brown, Hugh S.
Differential Prediction by the A.C..E.
Jour­
nal of Educational Research 44: 116-121.
October 1950.
7Brown, Hugh S.
Differential Prediction by the A.C..E.
Jour­
nal of Educational Research
44:116-121.
October 1950.
°Gsbornc, R. Travis, Sanders, W. B. and Greene, J. E.
The
Differential Prediction of College Marks by A.C..E. Scores.
Journal of Educational Re search 44: 107-115.
1950.
^Jackson, Robert A., Member of Michigan State College Board
of Examiners (Oral Communication)*

-

23

-

averages for 2832 M i c h i g a n State College s t u d e n t s b a s e d upon
fall quarter grades,
not all,

of the

These

1952.

J a c k s o n ’s grou.p Included many,

if

students in this study.

studies

suggest that by using bhe A m e r i c a n Council

on education P sychological Examination as

a c riterion of low

n o 13lty it might not be possible to get &

group of students

who are truly low in academic ability - student s who will be
in danger of falling unless they put forth great effort.

It

is evident that members of the sample selected for this study
were not all in danger of falling.

This f*act will undoubtedly

lessen the likelihood of establishing a pa.ss-fail point on a
basis of student effort.
While the p r o b l e m of predicting which, students were
truly 1 OV7 in academic ability was of vital Importance to the
art of this study concerned with the establishment of a passfail point,

it was not crucial to ether p a r t s

Foi* instance:

of the study.

whether a student has low afbllity or not and

whether the Instructor can accurately estimate the s t u dent1e
true ability or not,

It is still of interest to discover the

extent to which the instructor's rating of* the student's
ability is reflected in the mark the instructor gives that
student for his quarter's work.

CHAPTER III
l-IEASURABILITY OF THE VARIABLES
Three factors must be considered If the data of this
study are to be properly Interpreted.
1.
2

.

These factors are:

The nature of the variables to be measured.
The measuring Instruments and methods of appli­
cation.

3-

The methods used for analyzing the data with the
assumptions and qualifications warranting their

This chapter Is

p r i m a r i l y

tor in the list above.

use.

concerned with the first fac­

The remaining factors will be discus­

sed in successive chapters.
Thorndike has stated "Anything that exists at all exists
in some amount.

To know it thoroughly involves knowing its

quantity as well as its quality.
changes In human beings;
conditions;

Education is concerned wit h

a change is a difference between two

each of these conditions is known to us only by

the products produced by it— things made, words spoken, acts
performed,

and the like.

To measure any of these products

means to define its amount in some way so that competent p e r ­
sons will know hov; large it is, better than they would without
measurement.

To measure a product well means so to define its

amount that competent persons will know hov/ large it is, with

some precision,

and that this knov/ledge may be conveniently

recorded and used.
Variables such as a student's Interest in a course of
study, his general attitude toward that course,
that he makes to succeed in the course,

the effort

and his ability to

succeed are all recognized by teachers as existing.

Hot only

do teachers recognize the existence of these variables as an
observable fact but s.-e them as existing in differing amounts
in different

students or in the same student at different

cime s.
The fact that instructors in Basic 111 or Basic 121
agree as to the existence of a particular variable

such as a

student's attitude toward their course does not imply that
two or more instructors in the same subject matter area
would agree as to the quality of a particular student's at­
titude - even though they were all to observe him in the
same classroom and at the same time.

Each instructor might

have his own standard for rating the student on the variable
under observation.
Concepts such as a student's general attitude toward a
course are actually multi-dimensional.

A student might be

rated as having a good attitude because he appears interested

1 Thorndike, E. L.
The n a t u r e , Purpose and General Methods
of Educational P r o d u c t s . 17th Yearbook, National Society
for the Study of Education.
Part 2.
p. 16.

-26ln the class discussions and In the recitations*

Or, he might

get the same rating because he a skeu thoughtful questions seemed to have Insight into the p r o b l e m s of the course.
again, he might seem eager to learn,
what the instructor

says.

Or,

or pay r apt attention to

All of these and many others are

physical manifestations of tne student*s attitude toward the
course as observed by the instructor concerned.

A n d yet in

spite of this m u l t i - d l m e n s i o n a l l t y , it is common practice
for Instructors to r e gard a student as having a good (or
other) attitude toward his course.

Apparently,

students are

compared in the minds of their instructors according to a
linear scale.

This leads to the question:

How w ell can

this multi-dlmenslonal variable be measured w i t h a one-di­
mensional or linear rating scaley
Thurstone and Chave
attitudes.

had a similar p r o b l e m in measuring

They argued as follows:

“When the idea of

measurement is applied to scholastic achievement,
ple,

for exam­

it is necessary to force the qualitative variations Into

a scholastic linear scale of some kind.
way qualities such as mechanic al skill,
handwriting,

We Judge in a similar
the excellence of

and the amount of a man* s education as though

these traits were strung out along a single scale,
they are,

although

of course,

in reality scattered in many dimensions.

As a matter of fact,

we get along quite well with the concept

2Thurston, L. L. and Chave, E. J.
The Measurement of A t t i ­
t ude. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 111. 1929. p. 10.

of a linear scale In describing traits even so qualitative
as education,

social and economic status,

or beauty.

A scale

or linear c o n t inuum is i m p l i e d w h e n we say that a m a n h as more
education than another,
another,

even though,

or that a w o m a n is m ore b e a u t i f u l than

if pressed,

we admit that p e r h a p s the

p air involve d in each of the c o m p a ri sons have little in common.
It is clear that the linear c o n t i n u u m w hich is i m p lied in a
'more and l e s s 1 Judgment may be conceptual,

that it does not

necessaril y have the p h y s i c a l existence of a yardstick."
Ap p a r e n t l y the i n s t r uctor's linear rating of the stu­
dent's class attitude

is not r e q u i r i n g any more

"forcing"

than the instructor's linear rating of the student's total
p e r f ormance during the
A, B,

C, D,

or F.

quarter as i n d i cated b y the grades

At most,

the error

in a p p r a i s i n g general

class attitude is of no greater magnitude
appraising total performance.

than the error in

Even though more accurate

instruments for mea suring general class attitude might be
d e v ised than were u s e d in this study,

no increase in a c c u r a c y

might be expected in the comparisons of r a t i n g s w i t h grades
unless the grading

system itself was refined.

It should be noted that the ratings obtained are but
indices of the true
felt

situation.

The fact that an instructor

that a student h ad a good class attitude does not imply

that the

student himself or that other instructors w o uld

feel the same way about

It.

If,

for instance,

an instructor

-28rates a student as h avi n g a good class attitude b e c a u s e
student appears to be

the

eager to learn and is responsive to

■che ideas of the instructor,

there is no guarantee

that the

student is actually that way.
“But this discrepancy b e t ween the index and ' t r u t h 1
universal.
room,

is

When you wan t to know the temperature or y o u r

you look at the thermometer and use its reading as an

index of temperature

Just as though there were no e r ror in

the index and Just as though there were a single t e m p e r a t u r e
reading w h i c h is the
Rating

scale3

for this ^ u d y

'correct*

one for the room.

such as those used for gathering i n f o r m a t i o n

imply that the variable being observed is c o n ­

sidered to be continuous - at least continuous in a c e r t a i n
range.

For Instance,

formation Blank"

the r a t i n g scale from the “S p e c i a l I n ­

(see Appendix):

Student's ability to meet the requirements of this course:
Very Low
Average
Very High

J.

L

L

/

/

/

/

/

/

Tills scale implies that Abi 1 ity_.m ight be rated as b e i n g
where from very low to very high,
Chave point

inclusive.

some­

Thurstone a n d

out that such an assumption is rather c o m m o n f o r

measurement generally:

"In

ilmost every situation i n v o l v i n g

measurement there is po s t u l a t e d an abstract continuum such

-29as volume or temperature,

and the a l l o c a t i o n of* the thing

me a s u r e d to that c o n t i n u u m is a c c o m p l i s h e d u s u a l l y b y Indirect
means through one or more indices.

T r u t h is i n f e r r e d only

from the r e l ative consistenc y of the
it is never directly known,

11

several indices,

since

4

The other variables of this study are also m u l t i ­
dimensional and are a s s u m e d to be continuous.

The

state­

ments above apply to them as well as to the instructor* s
appraisal of the student's ability.
In a t t e mptin g to get at the true
to the amount of effort b e i n g made by

situation relative
the students,

study has included as m an y Indices as possible.

this

R a t ings

were obtained from the Basic 111 a nd Basic 121 instruc tors
having the low-abillty

students in their classes.

The

stu­

dents themselves were a s k e d to des cribe the studying that they
did for their Basic College courses.

D o r m i t o r y assistants

were r e q u e s t e d to complete a check list co n c e r n i n g the study­
ing b e ing done b y those

student m e m b e r s of the

sample group

that they were able to observe.
The dormitory assistants are unde r g r a d u a t e or graduate
students who live in the dormitories and have the special
r esponsibil ity of maintaini ng order,
w i t h studies,

giving Incidental help

and be ing generally aware of all that is

happening in the dormitory precinct

(living unit)

they are a s s i g n e d by the residence counselor.

^ Ibld. . p. 8.

to w h ich

The r e s i d e n c e

-30counselors are faculty members living in the d o r m itori es who
have general

supervisory an d counseling duties.

By obtaining two ratings,
quarter,

at different times during the

from the Basic 111 and Basic 121 Instructors,

possible to get two indices relative
ent ability,

general attitude,

it was

to the v a r i a b l e s of appar

and apparent

effort.

It was

thus possible to estimate the r e l i a bility of these types of
ratings.
This

study will attempt to discover the extent to which

the various
the

sources of information agree in their ratings of

student's effort.

It will attempt to answer the question:

Can the various indices be combine d to give a meanin gful index
of the student's effort?

Such a question must b e investigated

If a pa s s - f a l l point is to be esta blished on a b a s i s of p o o l e d
effort ratings.

CHAPTER IV
DES CRIPTION OF INSTRUMENTS A N D P R O C E D U R E S
De s i r e d information was obtained by means of three
questionnaires,
The

copies of w h i c h are included in the Appendix.

“Special Informati on Blank" was submitted to the Comm u n ­

ication Skills
Science

(Basic 111)

(Basic 121)

Instructors a nd to the Natural

Instructors through their departmental

offices at m i d - t e r m a n d a g ain during the final w e e k of cla sses
in fall quarter,

1 9 5 2

.

The b l a n k s were f i l l e d out as to I n s t r u c t o r 1s name,
p a r tment identification,

course and section numbers,

student's name was w r i t t e n in the p r oper

and the

space befo r e they

were submitted to the Instructors concerned.
arated by instructor, b y course,

de­

They were sep­

and b y section; and a l p h a b e t ­

ically a r r a n g e d w i thin each section so as to req uire a m i n i ­
m u m of h a n d l i n g by the staff members.

This was done to impose

as little as possible upon the time of the staff and thus gain
greater co operation w i t h accompanying greater r e l i a bilit y of
Information.
The instructors were requested to Indicate,
scales provided,

how the

on the rating

student impressed them relative to:

(1 ) the student's ability to meet the re quirements of the
course,

(2 ) the student's effort toward mastering the skills

and materials of the course,
attitude toward the course,

(3 ) the student's general
and other related questions.

They

were also to check b o xes indicating their feeling as to the

-32adequacy of their observations upon w h i c h they b a s e d their
rating.

Space was p r o v i d e d for them to Indicate Instances

where they h a d no b a sis for a Judgment.

A few Instructors

checked the space w h i c h indicated "no b a sis for J u d g m e n t , "
but the large majority felt that they h a d o b s erved the stu­
dents to a sufficient extent for making their ratings.
Since the b l ank was first submitted at mid-term,
space was p r o v i d e d for the Instructor to write
grade.

While

a

the mid-term

this p r o b a b l y required the instructor to refer

to his records,

the fact that he already h ad r e c o r d e d m i d - t e r m

scores for h is department, coupled w i t h the alphabetical
arrangement of the blanks, made it relatively easy to supply
this piece of Information.

At the end of the quarter when

the blanks were again submitted,

the Instructors were not

asked to indicate a grade on the blank.

The end-of-quarter

grades were obtained later from the i n s t r u c t o r ’s final grade
report.
Most of the blanks were returned within one w e e k after
being sent to the Instructors and all blanks fro m the first
set were r e t u r n e d before
staff.

the second set was r e l e a s e d to the

There was a 100^ return on the first set and a 9 h %

return on the

second set by Instructors of the Departments

of C ommunication Skills and Datura!
The

"Special Information Blank"

introduced by the paragraph:

Science.
(see Appendix) was

-33Y o u r Basic C o l l e g e R e s e a r c h Committee, at
the request of Dean Erickson, Is now engaged
In a study of student achievement.
It Is of
u t most Impo rtance to this study that y o u make
as accur ate a p p r a i s a l of (student*s name) as
y o u can at this time.
P l e a s e r e t u r n this
r a t i n g w he n c o m p l e t e d to the Hea d of your
Department.
Class

size h a d b e e n lim ited to p e r m i t the inst ructors

to become a c q u a i n t e d w i t h their students — to p e r s o n a l i z e
the Instruction.
ment Hea d m i ght
have kept

The f e e l i n g that their Dean a nd D e p a r t ­
expect them to k now their students could

some instructors f r o m u s i n g the

"out" p r o v i d e d

them and f o r c e d them to make a r a t i n g for the student where
they w o u l d have c h e cked the space indicating

"no b a sis for

a judgment" h a d tne information b l a n k come through d i f f e r ­
ent channels.
There is no way that this bias can be estimated.
ever,
be

there is no rea s o n to believe

How­

that a false report w o u l d

submitted concerning any student but only that the in­

structor m i gh t not be as confident of his r a ti ng as he indic a oe d .
Since

the instructors were not Informed that they w o u l d

be asked to make

two a p p r aisal s of the

students,

there is

no reason to b e l ieve that a special effort was made to make
the

two r a t i n g s agree.

evaluate

the pa r t i c u l a r

The fact that they were f o rced to
students of the

study on the specific

items of the q u e s t ionnaire and did not have to do so for

-34students g e n e r a l l y might have I n f l u e n c e d their

second r a t i n g -

tending to make it c o n f o r m to the fir st rating.

This f a c t o r

could not be a v o i d e d w i t h o u t great expense and w a ste of
faculty time.
There w a s
instruc tional

some p r e v i o u s k n o wledge

staff as to the general nature of the

they knew,

at least,

students.

An

effort was made

questions that could r e fer
readily as to l o w - abilit y

assigned?"

study -

that it was to be a study of l o w - a b i l l t y

p rior k n o w l e d g e might produce.

often has this

on the p a r t of the

to eliminate any b i a s this
The ques t i o n n a i r e

to h igh ability
students.

I ncluded

students as

For instance:

"How

student done more than Just the w o r k that was

The q u e s t ions Important to this study were also

wor ded in such a way as to apply equally well to h i g h - abllity
as to l o w - a b i l i t y

students.

An ad d i t i o n a l p r e c a u t i o n was
type of bias.

taken to eliminate this

The p a cket of q u e s t i onnai res for each section

of each course not only i n c luded b l a n k s for l o w - a b i l l t y
students

(those who r e c e i v e d one of the lower four standard

scores on the A.C.E.

P s y c h o l o g i c a l Examination),

but also

included a p p r o x i m a t e l y an equal number for h i g h - a b l l i t y
students

(those who r e c e i v e d one of the upper four

scores on the

same test).

standard

Since all of the b l a n k s were

arr anged a l p h a b e t i c a l l y in each section,
systematic arrangement of the low-abillty

there was no
students in any

-35of the v a r i o u s packs.

The respo nses by the Instructors

gave no evidence that they c o n s idered the study to be con­
cerned only w i t h l o w - abi llty
A q uestionn aire
about the students'
1 2 1

students.

(see Appendix)

seeking Information

g e n eral interest in Basic 111 and Basic

and about the amount of their studying for those classes

was sent w i t h explanation and instructions to the students
themselves.

These q u e s t i onnair es were pr e s e n t e d to the

students by their Basic 111 Instructors during the last
week of class in fall quarter,
Instructions,

1952.

As was stated in the

the c o m p l e t e d questionnaire was to be

in an a d d r e s s e d envelope

sealed

that ac companied the questionnaire.

The sealed letter was to be h a n ded to the Basic 111 instructor
who would p l ace it in the mall.
tiian 91/& return was achieved.

By this p rocedure a better
A b s e n c e s and no response by

tne students accounted for most of the remaining q u e stion­
naires.
Since this questionnai re to the students was being
handled by

the Basic 111 Instructors at about the same

time as the second report by instructors on the

"Special

Information B l a n k , " it was necessary to question all students
about w h o m the Instructors w o uld oe suomittlng information,
had only the low-abillty group b e en questioned,

it would have

Informed the instructors as to the group of students of
greatest interest to the

study.

Such information might have

-36inf luenced their

Becond response to the

"Special Information

Blank.»
There was a p p a r e n t l y

some m i s u n d e rstanding on the part

of some students in connec tion with one or two of the q u e s ­
tions.

The introductory

"To get an over-all

statement

picture,

it is

included the following:
necessary to question a

few students that

are r epresent ative of the general student

oody.

to be one of thestudents

You h a p p e n

selected to r e p ­

resent your group.

A n accurate response to the questions b e ­

low will be greatly

app r e c i a t e d by

Some students apparently
were

the Research Committee."

interpreted this to mean that they

to re p r e s e n t their Basic 111 group.

the questions relative

to Basic 111,

They respo nded to

but did nothing with

questions p e r t a i n i n g to Basic 121.
Ano ther v/eakness in the. instrument was that it allowed
only four choices Instead of five in describing the students'
studying.

They were given the following choice of response:

I studied

f(
< j
A C
V(

) a little
\ some
\
) quite a bit V
) very hard
J

Since there was no mid-position,
dency to show themselves
only permitted,
allowed,

many

of studying.

earlier in the quarter.

the students'

natural ten­

in the best llgnt possible was not

it was encouraged.

students might have

Had five choices been
indicated a medium amount

-37In tryi n g to obtai n inf o r m a t i o n about the s t u d e n t s 1
study effort f r o m the d o r m i t o r y assistants,
utes Check List"

(see Appendix) w as

tants through the r e s idence

a "Study A t t r i b ­

submitted to the a s s i s ­

counselors.

There is a real

question as to the extent to w h i c h the dormitory assistants
were able

to observe

study effort on the p art of the

students.

Each a s s i s t a n t was a s s i g n e d to a p r e c i n c t of f r o m 40 to 80
students.

Not only was that too m any

dormitory a s s istant
quarter,

students for the

to kno w intimately in the space of one

b ut not all students did their

studying in the d o r m ­

itory.
The c h e ck list was

submitted on M o nda y f o l l o w i n g T h a n k s ­

giving R e c e s s - this was thought to be late enough in the
quarter to allov/ the a s s i s tants to become
v.'ith their charges,

somewhat a c q u ainted

b u t not too far into the quarter that

their Judgment w o u l d be

influenced by e n d - o f - t e r m studying.

It w a s r e q u e s t e d that the assistants complete

the b l ank s

on a b a s i s of the I n f o r m a t i o n about the student that they
ha d at that p a r t i c u l a r time.

They were not to make

inquiry or start an investigation

since an evaluation of a

term's w o r k was desired - not a w e e k 1s report.
extent this

special

To what

suggestion was f o l l o w e d is not known.

Many dormit ory assista nts ind icated that they h a d no
b a s i s for a Judgment at that time.

Some i n d icat ed that they

were more or less guessing on some of the opinions since it

-38was difficul t for them to be certain.
might have f o u n d the

E ven though they

student at hi s d esk whe ne v e r

ed his r o o m it did not nece ssarily

they e n te r­

Indicate that he was

studying.
I n f o r m a t i o n about the
from the

student's interest wa6 obtained

students themselves.

In f o r m a t i o n about

the student's

apparent abil ity a nd h i s class attitude was o b t a i n e d from
the instructors.

However,

inf o r m a t i o n about the

study effort came f r o m three
students,

student's

sources - the instructors,

the

a n d the do r m i t o r y assistants.

Three d i f f e r e n t types of ins t r u m e n t s were u s e d to
obtain i n f o r m a t i o n about the
respective

sources.

student's

study effort from the

They were:

To the Basic I n s t r u c t o r s :
Flease indicate how this student Impresses you by
p l a c i n g a check ( ^ ) mark at the prop er place along
tiie scale lines:
S tudent's effort tow a r d m a s t e r i n g the
mater ials of this course:
hot Trying
—

/—

Doing a Fair A m o u n t

/ ------ / ----

/—

/—

skills and
Working very H a r d

/-------- / ----- /—

/—

To the S t u d e n t s :
Check
the w o r d s in the sentences b e low that
best describe your studying for your Basic courses
so far this quarter:

/—

-39a little
some
quite a bit
very h a r d

I studied

)
)
)

I am studying

earlier this quarter.

less
the same
more

now.

To the d o r m itor y a s s i s t a n t :
Plea s e c h e c k ( ^ ) those e x p r e s s i o n s w hich bes t
a n swer the q u e s t i o n as far as the above n a m e d
student is concerned:
To w ha t extent has this
studying?

student b een

Not at all
(
)
Very little
(
)
A b o u t as m uch as most students do
(
)
Quite a b it
(
)
Very h a r d
(
)
The fact that these I n s t ruments are not the
mean that they are not m e a s u r i n g the
they are all d e a l i n g with
po s s i b i l i t y

that

the

same variable.
some

sort.

specifically.

3e

since the

However,

There is a

the i n s t ructors d i d not estimate

ing the student was d o i n g
that

effort of

same m i g ht

the study­

scale did not request

that as it may,

the i n f o rmat ion f r o m

students a nd the d o r mit ory as s i s t a n t s is certainly r e ­

la ted to the effort the

student is maki n g toward masterin g

the skills a nd m a t e r i a l s of the courses.
The i n f o rmation f r o m the d o r m i tory assist ants was of a
general nature

in that

they could not tell w h e t h e r a student

was studying Basic 111 or some other course.
c o uld hope

to indicate was w h e ther the student

All that they
studied at all

-40in the dormitory.
hot only is the variable

"Effort" multi-dimensional

from the v i e wpoint of any one observer in his situation,
but when r a t e d b y d i f f er ent observers,
conditions,

and in different

under different

situations it is very doubtful

whether it is the same variable that is being rated.
ever,

there might be

sufficient

How­

similarity b e t w e e n ratings

by observers to indicate that they are seeing different
aspects of the same thing.

That was the hope of this study

CHAPTER V
M E T H O D S OF S U M M A R I Z I N G A N D A N A L Y Z I N G THE D A T A
The r a t i n g scales use d in this

study were not absolute

scales nor w e re they s t a n dardized instruments.
p o i n t e d out earlier in this dissertation,
cerned are multi-dimension al.
a student

The

the v a r iables c o n ­

One observer m i ght not rate

the same as anoth er observer.

er might not give the

A s ha s b e e n

Or,

the

same o b s e r v ­

same rating at two different times.

scales on the

"Special Information Blank"

that w as

sent to the Basic 111 and Basic 121 instructors were

sub­

d i v ided into app r o x i m a t e l y ten units b y cross marks on the
linear

scale.

Word d e f i n i t i o n s of the ratings a p p ear ed at

either end and in the center of the
the

------------/

Ordinary
/

/

/

Since the ratings probably
subdivisions indicate,
ings by
manner

student's

toward the course was as follows:

V ery Poor
/

For instance,

scale u s e d for obta ining in f o r m a t i o n about the

general attitude

—

scale.

Very Good
/

/

/

/

/

----------

were not as accurate as the ten

it was decided to summarize the r a t ­

subdividing the scale into five
shown on the next page.

intervals in the

-42(a)
Very rPoor ^
I

I

f

1

(b)
(c)
^Ordinary f

t

f

(d)
^ Veryf Good

y

(O r i g i n a l 1Scale on*Attitude)

I

I

Very Poor

•

I

Ord inary

1

2

*

I

I
Very Good

4

3

5

(Attitude Scale Having Five Subdivisions)
Each or the five

intervals was ^iven an index number

to identify and d i f f e ren tiate
the

it.

scale in a space c o r r e s p o n d i n g to one of the five inter­

vals were

given that i n t e r v a l ’s index number r e g a r d l e s s of

where they fell in the interval.
(a),

All ratings fall ing along

(b),

(c),

or

(d)

secutive intervals,

R a t i n g s f a l l i n g on points

(shown above),

the p o ints b e t ween c on­

were i ncluded in the Interval c o n t a i n ­

ing the w o r d d e f i nition of the rating.
falling on p o int

That is,

(a) were placed in the first

given the index 1, ratings falling on points

ratings

interval and
(b)

or

(c) were

p l a c e d in the third interval and given an index 3* ratings
falling on p o i n t

(1) were included in Interval five and given

the index 5.
It might be argu e d that since
unequal

size,

the d i s t r i b u t i o n of ratings is thereby d i s ­

torted in grouping.
rating

the subdivisions are of

However,

it is felt that in using a

scale where parts of the scale are d e f ined while other

parts are not,

the p e r s o n doing the rating might be drawn

-*0toward the d e f i ned portions.

The observer who feels that

the Individual being obs erved is about ordinary might be
drawn to the w o r d " o r d i n a r y ” on the scale.
between

If he checks

"very poor" and "ordinary" he probably is certain

that it should not be

"very poor" nor

"ordinary," but some­

where b e t w e e n the two.
If an instructor feels that his

student has a poor

attitude toward the course - where might he check along the
scale7

Certainly not

"very p o o r , " the student is thought

to be bett e r

than that.

he considers

"ordinary"

halfway b e t w e e n
probably be

Will he check "ordinary"?

Not if

to mean average - approximately

"very poor" and

somewhere between

"very g o o d . "

Poor will

"very . o o r ,! and "ordinary,"

but might not be halfw ay between.
Since the ratings probably are not as precise as the
original

scale indicated,

the grouping into five intervals

as Indicated will proba b l y not distort the distribution
appreciably.
The replies on the check list,
assistants,

sent to the dormitory

relative to the student's

into five categories by

studying were forced

the nature of the check list.

These

categories h a d the index numbers one through five assigned
to them in order of increasing
assigned to the

statement

study.

Index number 1 was

"Not at all" and 5 was assigned

to the statement "Very h a r d . "

While

the check list appears

-44to "be definitive,

it is as indefinite as the r a t i n g

sent to the instructors.
"About as muc h as most

For Instance,

scale

the statement:

students d o . " — how much is that?

The amount that this ind icates will u n d o u b t e d l y var y f r o m
observer to observer.

However,

its p o s i t i o n in the list of

choices i n d i c a t e d that it was ce ntrally l o c a t e d b e t ween
little

studying and m u c h

studying.

a s s i stants r e a l i z e d that.

P e r hap s the dor mitory

At best,

it was a crude measure.

In trying to get an evaluation of the studying done b y
the

student,

a l l o w e d the

two q u e s t i o n s were a s h e d I n s t e a d of one.
student

to somev/hat describe

studying during the quarter.

This

the nat ure of his

The r e q uest for Information

was w o r d e d in the fo l l o w i n g manner:
Chech
) the w o r d s in the sentences b e l o w that
b est descr i b e your studying for your Basic courses
so far this quarter:

I studied:

)
)
)
)

a little
some
>
quite a Dit *
very hard

I am studying:

)
)
)

less
the same
more

earlier

y

in the quarter,

now.

It was felt that this set of statements might pa r t i a l l y
overcome

the tendency to report the best

ing the q u a rte r as b e ing
worh.

This

studying done d u r ­

typical of the entire q u a r t e r ’s

type of response,

however,

made it somewhat

-^5difflcult

to ran k the r e s p o n s e s into an a s c e n d i n g scale or

study effort.
However,

the p o s s i b l e c o m b i n a t i o n s of r e s p o n s e were

liste d a nd g r o u p e d into

seven ca t e g o r i e s - each of w h i c h

seemed to Involve a b e t t e r
one.

study p a t t e r n than the pre vious

The ca t e g o r i e s are list ed as follows:

Index
Humber
1

Type of Studying R e p o r t e d
A little

studying earlier - less now.

A little
2
Some

studying earlier - the same now,
or
studying earlier - less now.

A little

studying earlier - more now,
or
Q,ulte a b it of studying earlier - less now.
Some

h

studying earlier - the same now,
or
Stu died very h a r d earlier - less now.
Some

5

studying earlier - more now,
or
quite a b i t of studying earlier - the same now.

o

Studied very h a r d earlier - the same now,
or
quite a b i t of studying earlier - more now.

7

S t u d i e d v er y h a r d earlier - more now.

The index numbers identify the category into w h ich the
vario us ratings by the

students were placed.

Since the

students r a t e d themselves but once during the quarter,

there

-

46 -

is no estimate of the Inst r u m e n t ' s reliability.
The I n s t r u c t o r s r a t e d each student

twice an d thereby

fu r nished an index of r e l i a b i l i t y for the i n s t rument s that
they used in rating the
rated the same

students.

students twice,

Since the instructors

a c o m b i n e d rati n g was obtained

by adding the index n u m b e r s given the individual ratings. As
each individual rating was

supposed to be a summary of the

quarter's p e r f o r m a n c e until the time
the

the rating v:as made,

second r a t i n g was b a s e d on more ob servations than was

the first.

The a d d i t i o n a l o b s e r vations were made during

the three - or four - w e e k interval b e t ween the two ratings.
By adding

the two in dex numbers,

was

a l l owed to influence

most

instances

the trend during the quarter

the c o m bined effort rating.

the two r a t i n g s by the

same instructor were

In agreement w i t h each other so the trend effect was
To obtain
ate

a p o o l e d effort r a t i n g f r o m the three

ratings by tne various

sources,

In

slight.
separ­

it was decided to weight

t.iOse r a t ings in the fo l l o w i n g manner:
Weight

Tyce of R a t i n g
t r u c t o r s 1 c o m b i n e d effort rating
Students'

rating of own effort

Do r m i t o r y assistants'

rating

It v;ae felt

that the instructors,

should have

their

2
2
1

h a ving made two ratings,

judgments w e i g h t e d twice that of the

-

d o r m l t o r y assistants'
that the

single

2+ 7Judgment.

s t u d e n t s k n o w as muc h a b o u t

I n s t ructors k n o w about that

It w a s als o felt

their own study ing as

studying a n d should therefore

have their r a t i n g count as h e a v i l y as does the instructors'
rating.
The p o o l e d effort r a t i n g score was d e t e r m i n e d in the
f o l l o w i n g way:

The i n d e x n u m b e r s for the v a r i o u s effort

ra t ings on each student were m u l t i p l i e d by the w e i g h t i n g
f a ctors m e n t i o n e d above.

That is,

the i n dex n u m b e r i d e n t i f y ­

ing the study p a t t e r n d e s c r i b e d b y the
m u l t i p l i e d b y t w o . the

student h i m s e l f w as

sum of i n dex numbers I d e n t i f y i n g the

effort r a t i n g s by the B a s i c 111

(or B a s i c 121)

instructor

was m u l t i p l i e d by t w o . and the index numbe r i d e n t i f y i n g the
categ ory c h e c k e d b>
the
were

student's

the do r m i t o r y a s s i s t a n t as d e s c r i b i n g

studying was m u l t i p l i e d by one.

then a d d e d to obtain a p o o l e d

effort

These v a l u e s

score for the

student involved.
It was d e s i r e d to express the effort
centage.

score as a p e r ­

This was a c c o m p l i s h e d in the f o l l o w i n g manner:

The p o s s i b l e range

of effort

ing the m i n i m u m effort
the m a x i m u m effort

scores w a s d e t e r m i n e d by c o m p u t ­

score that c o u l d p o s s i b l y be given and

score

that c o u l d p o s s i b l y be given,

s u b t r a c t i n g the m i n i m u m f r o m the maximum.
was then a d j u s t e d by

E a c h effort

s u b t r a cting the m i n i m u m effort

f r o m it to get an effective or a d j u s t e d effort

then
score

score

score.

By

-48dividlng each a d j u s t e d score by the p o s s i b l e range of
effort

scores and m u l t i p l y i n g by 100,

It was p o s s i b l e to

express the p o o l e d effort rating for each student as a p e r ­
centage

score.

Two

separate p e r c e n t a g e

scores were d e t e r m i n e d for

each student - one of w h i c h included the r a t i n g s by the
Basic 111 i n s t ructor and the other i n c l u d e d r a t i n g s by the
Basic 121 instructor.

The first

score was u s e d for c o m ­

p a r i s o n s w i t h Basic 111 grades while the
for c o m p a risons w i t h Basic

121 grades.

second was u s e d
This was done to

pr o vide as accurate a p i cture as poss i b l e of the effort that
was put f o rth

toward ma s t e r i n g

the course concerned.

Two different m e t h o d s were u s e d in d e f i n i n g low effort high, effort.

One p r o c e d u r e was to call those

ceiving a p e r c e n t a g e
L.nd the others

effort

students r e ­

score of 50 or b e l o w

“high -eff o r t . "

The

"l o w - e f f o r t 11

second m e t h o d was to call

the individ uals r e c e i v i n g the lowest

3 1

scores

"low-effort. 11

This a m o unted to a p p r o x i m a t e l y Z o % of the group.

Those in­

dividuals receiving the highest pi scores were called

"high-

eff ort. “
Students that were called “l o w - e f f o r t 11 under
defin ition above r e c e i v e d percenta ge

effort

the second

scores of 45p

or below if Basic 111 r a t i n g s were involved a nd 4 2 p or b e l o w
if Basic 121 ratings were
according

involved.

to the second definition,

“h i g h - e f f o r t 11 students,
r e c e i v e d per centage

-49scores of 66,5 or above If B a s i c 111 r a t i n g s were

effort

I n v o l v e d a n d 60j£ or a b o v e if Basic 121 r a t i n g s were In v o l v e d
in their der i v a t i o n .
The

s e c o n d m e t h o d of d e f i n i n g low and h i g h effort leads

to more p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s
grades g i v e n

since c o m p a r i s o n s are b e t w e e n

students w i d e l y

s e p a r a t e d as f ar as p o o l e d

effort r a t i n g s are concerned.
of the

total group,

the title s

By

greater confidence

"low-ef fort"

The r a t i n g s made

and

e x a m i n e d 'em itself,
table where

can be

on the v a r i a b l e s under

classification frequency

frequency

the middle half
-laced upon

2

" h i g h - e f f o r t ."

t a b u l a t e d an d the r e s u l t s were

to be

ignor i n g

study were

either p l a c e d in a single

table,

where

a single v a r iable was

or in a two-way c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

two v a r i a b l e s were

to be

compared.

For Instance:
Table 5 - 2

Table 5 - 1

B a s i c 111 Instructors'
R a t i n g s of Students'
A t t i t u d e T o w a r d B a s i c 111.

a;.oic 121 I n s t r u c t o r s * R a t i n g s
of Students' E f f o r t to ^ee t
B asic 121 R e q u i r ements.
(Combined Rat ings.)

S e c o n d R a ting
Index

Frequency
-L
11
18
37

"53

C

4-5

^

1 6

17
10

-j

4

5

1

o

<

20

7

1

1

7

30

4

2

o

15

4-5

0D

f~t u
Pm

b

-50To analyze and compare the data it was first necessary
to determine

the a r i t hmet ic mea n an d the standard deviation

for each of the f r e q u e n c y distributions.

The mean represents

the index va lue most centrally l o c a t e d relative
entire distribution,

w h ile

to the

the standard deviation indicates

the spread or scatter of r a t ings or grades about that central
value.
D i s t r i b u t i o n s of the
in level,

same g e n e ral nature may differ

tnat is - their means,

or differ in the extent

to w h i c h they are d i s p e r s e d about
Signific ance

tests may be used,

their means jor both.

u n der prop e r conditions,

to test d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n means

or differences

ance

to determine,

(standard d e v i ati on

pr e v i o u s l y

with a

specified r i s k of r e j e c t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s when

it should be accepted,
from w h i c h the two
as h a v i n g

squared)

in v a r i ­

the

whether the two p a r e n t pop ulations

samples were drawn might be considered

same cha ra c t e r i s t i c s

(the same mean and same

standard deviation).
The
date

significance

of this

tests used in analyzing

some of the

study invo lved the t and the F distributions.

The u n d e r l y i n g a s s u mptio ns and the general pr o c e d u r e s for
u s i n g these

statistics are as follows:

In testing the h y p o t h e s i s that two par ent populations
nave

the

they have

same mean,

it is first n e c e s s a r y to test whether

the same variance

(unless this fact is somehow

-51p r e v i o u s l y known).
Let us

say that we h a v e two

h a ving n measurements,
deviation

sample groups — one group

a m ean value

of x,

a nd a standard

sx ; the other g r o u p h a v i n g m measurements,

mean value y,

a n d a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n Sy.

p o p u l a t i o n f r o m w h i c h the first group was
m e a n M x , a n d a standard d e v i a t i o n
l a tion f r o m w h i c h the
My,

and a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n

My,

The p a r e n t
selected had a

w h ile

s e cond group w a s

a

the p a rent p o p u ­

selec t e d h a d a mean

These p a r a m e t e r s

h ave v a l u e s that are not known.

(M^

The only clues we

have as to their p o s s i h l e v a lues are f u r n i s h e d b y the sample
s t a t istics X,

Sx , Y,

Sy.

The f i rst h y p o t h e s i s
earent
At

cop u l a t i o n s have

tnis ^oint,

we

should

to take of r e j e c t i n g
be accepted.

to be

t e s t e d is w h e t h e r

equal variances,

that is:

the two
&Z

2

- &Z.

2

state the r i s k that we are w i l ling

the h y p o t h e s i s whe n a c t u a l l y it should

This is c a l l e d Type I error.

A r a t h e r common r i s k a s s u m e d In the f i e l d of e d u c a t i o n ­
al r e s e a r c h for Type
through out

this

I error is 5p.

Such a r i s k is a s s u m e d

study.

For t e s t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s CT1
= C
we use the F stati
S ^
tic w h i c h is d e f i n e d as F = ■
, the ratio of the varianc es
V
for the two samples.
The a s s u m p t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g the use of
this

statistic are:

The o b s e r v a t i o n s are to be r a n d o m sam­

p les f r o m norm a l p o p u l a t i o n s and the h y p o t h e si s 1 s assumed
to be

true.

Un der these assumptions,

the sampling dletrlbu-

-52tion for the F s t a t ist ic h a s "been c o m p u t e d a n d m a y he f o u n d
In tabular f o r m in some e l e m e n t a r y

sta tistics t e x t b o o k s or

b o o k s of s t a t i s t i c a l tables.^
R e j e c t i o n r e g i o n s m a y be d e t e r m i n e d b y o b t a i n i n g F
v a l u e s f r o m the table or c o m p u t e d f r o m them.

The F v a l u e s

u s e d must take into a c c o u n t the n u m b e r of o b s e r v a t i o n s in
the two sam ples a n d the

size of r i s k a s s u m e d for Type I

error.
If the v a lu e for F that Is c o m p u t e d by d i v i d i n g
O
o
3 X ^ by 3 J ** is i n c l u d e d in either r e j e c t i o n region, the
hypothesis
to have

is r e j e c t e d a n d the p a r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s are

s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f ferent variances.

as h a p p e n e d in every i n s t a n c e in this

study,

If,

said

however,

the c o m p u t e d

F value does not fall w i t h i n one of the r e j e c t i o n regions,
then the h y p o t h e s i s is a c c e p t e d a n d the p a r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s
are

said to have

the

same variance.

Once the h y p o t h e s i s

of equal v a r i a n c e s is accepted,

a new h y p o t h e s i s is p r o p o s e d for test - namely:

^

- My,

that is - the m e a n s of the two p a r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s are equal.
A c c e p t i n g the

same r i s k as b e fore

w h e n it shoul d be accepted,

of r e j e c t i n g

the h y p o t h e s i s

we operate at the 5 % level of

significance.
It h as b e e n a c c e p t e d that the v a r i a n c e s of the p a rent

O n e s u c h s e t o f t a b l e s m ay be f o u n d in D i x o n , W i l f r e d J.
an d Massey, F r a n k J. Jr., I n t r o d u c t i o n to S t a t isti cal
A n a l y s i s , McGraw-Hill, 1951, PP. 310-313.

-bhpopulations are equal
the value

(by the previous consideration)

of that variance

sary to estimate

is not known.

but

It will be n e c e s ­

that value as best we can,using the known

variances

of the two samples.

formula:

5^^ =

This we do b;. using the

/ rcSy~ . where
ri ^ " m - 2
scyuare estimate of <r“ .

Sc 4' is the p o o l e d mean

The statistic that we use In testing the hypothesis
lh- = 24,. is the t statistic w h ich is defined as:
A
j
t =

X - Y
. \ / T 7 X
a FV

The

assumptions underlying

as follows:

n

m

tue use of this statistic

are

Both populations are to have normal distribu ­

tions with the

same v a r i a n c e .

Under

these assumptions,

the

distribution for the t statistic has been computed and placed,
in taoular form,

in various

statisties t e x t s .

2

By taking into account the number of observations in
the

two samples and

the level of significance,

it is p o s ­

sible to obtain critical t values fro m the tables and d e t e r ­
mine rejecti on regions.
VThen the value for t is compute d using the information
from the two known samples,

it may then be

seen whether that

value falls within one of the rejection regions.

If it does,

-54the h y p o t h e s i s

(Mx = My)

is r e j e c t e d a n d it Is c o n c lud ed

tnnt the two p o p u l a t i o n s f r o m w h ich
have

the samples were drawn

s i g n i f i c a n t l y di f f e r e n t mean values.
If, however,

the t value,

as computed,

does not fall

In either r e j e c t i o n r e g i o n then the h y p o t h e s i s Is a ccepted
that the two m e a n values are the same.
no significant difference b e twe en

That is,

there Is

the means of the two

parent populations.
Bot h

tests of significance d e s c r i b e d above are b a s e d

upon the a s s u m p t i o n

that

normal populations.

the

samples have been drawn f rom

Is there reason

to believe

that this

assumption is Justified for the p o p u l a t i o n s f r o m w h i c h the
samples u s e d in this study were drawn?
prior k n o w l e d g e

Since there is no

of the nature of these populations,

question can only be a n s w e r e d on a b a sis of the
arh of tne factors
Some of the
on tne f i n a l

samples

that influenced the nature of the samples.

samples were composed of scores r e c eived

examina tions in Basic 111 or 3asic 121.

students to w h o m these

scores In the

b een p i c k e d by means of the A.C.E.
tion

the

scores as b e i n g p oor

The

sample were given had

Psychological Examina­

students and the students had

bee n placed in a low-effort group* (or in a high-ef fort group)
b v tne

technique p r e v i o u s l y described.

here

the A.C.E.

Psychological Examination and the effort

rating technique m e n t i o n e d previously perfectly

discrimlnat-

-55ing,

there m i g h t be r e a s o n to expect the d istri butions of

final e x a m i n a t i o n scores to be
low-effort

students

skewed.

The low-ability -

should receive very lov; grades v/lth the

largest n u m b e r getting f a i l i n g grades and a few getting
passing grades.

A n d the l o w - a b ility - h l g h -effort

should have grades mostly

students

above the fall line w i t h very few

below it.
However,
tion nor the

since n e ither

Psyc h o l o g i c a l E x a m i n a ­

effort r a t i n g technique is anywhere near perfect,

it was po ssi b l e for
apparent

the A.C.E.

students

who

l e a rned quickly w i t h little

study effort to be c l a s sified as low-effort students.

The p resence

of these h i g h e r - a b i l i t y

students in the low-

aoility group w o uld tend to mean additional p a s s i n g grades.
These a d d i t i o n a l grades w o uld probably
the p a s s i n g j Girt w i t h some
creasing grade)

cluster

just above

(decreasing in number with in­

scattered up the grading

scale.

The two

groups b e i n g combined w o u l d tend to show a nearly normal
grade distribution.

This leads to the belief that the

po p u lations f r o m w h i c h the
normally distributed.
but ions
least,

nor ma1

in this
there

study

samples in this study came were

The appearance of the sample d i s t r i ­
1 end credence

is no evidence

to t.uls belief.

At

that the populations were not

.

It

must be p o i n t e d out that the parent population s

fro m w h ich the

sarnies of this s t u d y

were 'drawn were not

-56composed of students,
ratings)

but were dist r i b u t i o n s of grades

(or

that might r e a s o n a b l y have been expecte d to have

been given

to a certain group of students.

The group in

guest ion was c o m p o s e d of all p o s sible persons who might have
entered 11.3.C.

fall quarter,

1952 to start their first

quarter of college work, in the normal course of events,
who w o uld have r e c e i v e d one of the lower four

and

standard score

...ensures on the test-retest of the 19^9 edition of the A.C.E.
P sycholog ical E x a m i n a t i o n and who w o u l d have,
course of events,

in the natural

b e e n r a t e d as low-effort by the effort

rating device use d in this study.

That distribution of

grades was a s s u m e d to be normally dis t r i b u t e d and the p a r t i ­
cular

sample

that was o b t a i n e d in this

study was assumed to

have been r a n d o m l y drawn from that parent p o p u lation of
basic 111 final e x a m i na tion grades.
The final assuim tion of rand o m selection is not so
easy to d e f e n d
by

since the

sample of the

study was

selected

the convenient m e thod of choosing only grades given to

students who actually

enrolled and completed their first

quarter's w o r k at M i c h i g a n State College.
siole applic ants did not come to 1I.3.C.
ure.

There are many factors

geographic

location,

'Thy other pos-

is left to conject­

such as financial aollity,

p e r s o n a l preferences,

etc.,

that u n ­

doubtedly entered into the consideration.
Aithougli the r a n d o m n e s s of tine selection is question-

-57able,

nothing r e l a t e d to the

study might have co n d i t i o n e d

the d e c ision to come or not come to college u n l e s s
candidates,
in the

u p o n taking the A.C.E.

Psychological Examination

summer m o n t h s p r e c e d i n g fall term,

coming to 11.S.C.

some

1952 decided against

b e c a u s e of a f e e l ing that they did poor l y

and might not be f i t t e d for college work.
In d e t e r m i n i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n the various
factors ana the grades given in Ba sic 111 or Bas ic 121,

the

Pearson p r o d u c t mome nt coefficient of corr elation was used.
Vdienever two variables,
p e r t a i n e d to the

same

that is,

student,

ratings or grades,

these p a i r e d v a l u e s were

first i n d i c a t e d on a scatter d i a g r a m and then summarized in
a two-way c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f r e q uency table
5-2.

From

such a table it was p o s s ible

similar

to Table

to determine

the

frequ ency d i s t r i b u t i o n s for the two v a r i a b l e s concerned,
with their mea ns and standard de v i a t i o n s
It was also p o s s i b l e

to multi ply the

(X,

(Z X Y

(
sample.

Sy).

two p a i r e d values for

each student and to determine the average
p r o d u c t s for the entire number

Sx and Y,

K

) of such

J

(ri) of students in the

The P e a r s o n p r o d u c t moment coefficient of c o r r e l a ­

tion was then c o m p u t e d by using the formula:
E XX

r

=

_ xy

N
----------------sx sy

A s s u m p t i o n s of r a n d o m n e s s in sampling and normality

-58of parent p o p u l a t i o n s are not assumed in the derivation of
the coefficient of correlation.

Any set of p a i r e d numbers,

nov/ever o b t a i n e d and f r o m whatever

source,

has a coefficient

of correlation.
"While the fo rmulation Itself implies no assumptions,
tl*e coefficient of correlation is interpreted by means of
us sumptions

that are made about the natures of the variables

being compared.

These assumptions are usually b a sed upon

logical consid erations

or intuition founded upon prior o b­

servation of the two variables.

There cere reasons for

believing that the two factors are related prior

to the

computation of a coefficient of correlation - the c o r rela­
tion coefficient

then furnishes an estimate of the extent

of that relationship.
A h igh correla tion between the variables does not of
itself mean

that there

is a strong cause-effect r e l a t i o n ­

ship between the variables.

However,

of cause-effect has b e e n established,

when the probability
the coefficient of

correlation may be u s e d to estimate the strength of the
relationship.
On the other hand,

if the coefficient of correlation

for two variab les is zero,
tions;:ip betw een those

there is no cause-effect rela-

two variables.

This is so whether

a cause-effect relationship was assumed a priori or not.
The variables are unrelated,

have no common elements.

-59W1 tii the p r o c e d u r e s and tools u s e d for this study in
uind,

it will be pos sible

to interpret the findings - taking

care to note where basic assumptions inherent In the tools
are only p a r t i a l l y
obtaining the data.

satisfied by the procedures used for

CHAPTER VI
G E N E R A L F I N D I N G S AND R E L A T I O N S H I P S
A definite

effort w as made at the

start of this study

to a c c u rately p r e dict w h i c h students might be of low academic
ability.

The extent to w h i c h that was a c c o m p l i s h e d may be

determined b y exa mining Table 6 - 1 ,
It can be
ability

seen that a c o n s iderabl e pe r c e n t a g e of low-

students r e c e i v e d a grade of C or better,

from their instructors,
inations as well.
a very

on page 6l.

not only

but on a b a s i s of their final exa m ­

So many were passed,

small p e r c e n t a g e were f a i l e d by

tors or the f i nal examinations.

in fact,

that only

either their i n s truc­

Even when the i n s t r u c t o r s 1

mark and the final examination grade were combined,
r.3,5 of the

"low-ability"

in Basic 111,

only

students r e c e i v e d the grade of F

while 9.3/^ r e c e i v e d that grade in Basic 121.

It may be n o ted that while most of the grade d i s t r i b u ­
tions for B a sic 121 c o n f o r m closely to the
A 7-11

B 25-29

C ^+5-49

D 12-16

F 0-5,

suggested pattern:
the Basic 111 i n ­

s t r u c t o r s ’ grades for all freshme n h a d an appreciabl y higher
p e r c entage

of B ’s and a much

smaller pe r c e n t a g e of D 1s. This

general te ndency by the Basic 111 instructors to give the
nlgher grades u n d o u b t e d l y i n f l uenced the grades they gave
the

"low-ability"

students,

various r a t i n g s they made

and poss ibly

on those

infl uenced the

students.

Distrioutions

of ratings by the Basic 111 Instructors were generally

Table 6 - 1
Percentage Distributions of Grades Received by Low-Ability Students and by
All Freshmen in Basic 111 and Basic 121 During Fall Quarter, 1952.

111

121

111

121

Final Examination
Grade Distribution
Percentages
LowAll
Ability
Freshmen

111

8.5

40.3

25.6

2.6

58.0

44.0

44.1

D

12.6

33.9

5.9

F

1.7

13.6

1.1

B

25.2

C

121

111

121

111

121

7.9

8 .4

35.8

28.5

7.6

7.9

6.8

23.8

25.6

-vl

8.4

2.5

111

CD

8.1

A

121

Course Grade
Distribution
Percentages
LowAll
Abllity
Freshmen

9.3

46.4 31.2

44.1

49.8

51.3

42.6

32.2

to. 9 41.1

14.7 47.0

40.6

15.8

12.2

44.4

49.2

12.1* 17.7

19.2

8.5

2.9

3.0

4.3

9.3

^•3

•

Q)
a.
s
t

Instructors1 Grade
Distribution
Percentages
LowAll
Ability
Freshmen

1.5

3.8

The percentages for the “All Freshmen" distributions do not necessarily
total 100# for the table shown here. A few miscellaneous grades such as
the Incomplete were given, but not shown in the distribution above.
Data for the "All Freshmen" distributions may be found in Summary of Basic
College Course Grades. M.S.C. Board of Examiners. January 21, 1953.

i
ON
H
I

-6 2

-

skewed t o w a r d the more fa v o r a b l e ratings.
It can be

seen f r o m the table that the

earlier r e l a t i v e to the A.C.E.

statements made

Psychological Examination

and its p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y are in ag r e e m e n t w i t h the facts.
As a group the

“l o w - a b i l i t y 11 students do receiv e

than do f r e s h m e n generally;

however,

lower grades

there are many

capable

students I n c l u d e d in the l o w - ability group.
In trying to dete rmine a p a s s - f a i l point on a basis
of effort,

it was d e c i d e d tc separate the l o w - a b i l i t y group

into two sub-groups,

a l o w - a b i l i t y - low-effort group and a

low-abi lity - h i g h - e f f o r t group.

It was felt that if the

Hypot hesis p r o p o s e d by the Basic College E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h
Committee w a s correct,
group w o u l d be

the mean grade given the hig h-effort

sign i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r

than the mean grade

given the low-effort group.

The fact that the low-ability

group c o n t a i n e d many capable

students made it less likely

that

such a separation of mean grades w o u l d be found.

If

some students in the low-effort groups were a c t u a l l y capable
students,

they w o u l d tend to get h i g h e r

scores than would

students of truly low a b i l i t y w h ile maki n g the same effort.
The next factors that must be c o n s i d e r e d in u n d e r ­
standing the p r o b l e m of establishing a p a s s - f a i l point are
the various

effort ratings

ings are as follows:

that were obtained.

These f i n d ­

-

63 -

HlBtogram 1

Histogram 2

F requency D i s t r i b u t i o n of
Ratings by L o w - A b i l l t y S t u ­
dents on their own study
Effort.
50

F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n s of
R a t i n g s by D o r m i t o r y A s s i s t ­
ants on Study E f f o r t of LowA b i l i t y Students.

40
32
10

21

6
0 1---3
4
5
6
I n d e x n u m bers

2
-- =3
7

1

□

2
3 4
5
Index n u m b e r s

(Index n u m b e r s Increase In the order of increasing study)
H i s t o g r a m 1 shows a shewed d i s t r i b u t i o n due to the
natural t e n dency on the part of the
their best and the fact

students to try to look,

that they c o u l d not indicate a

m e d i u m amount of studying on the Instrument given them.
The r a t i n g s by the dormitory assistants,
surprisingly
the

symmetric.

"not at all"

all of the

however,

are

Index number 1 was a s s i g n e d to

category.

students In the

A p p a r e n t l y It was felt that
sample group did some studying.

The f o l l o w i n g h i s t o g r a m s will

show the distributions

of rat ings on effort g i v e n by the Basic 111 and Basic 121
instructors:

-6^-

Histogram 4

'requency D i s t r i b u t i o n of
ffort R a t i n g s on L o w -Ab11ty Students by Their
asic 111 Instructors.
(Combined Ratings)

F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n of
E f f o r t R a t i n g s on Low-Ability Students b y Their
B a s i c 121 Instructors.
(Combined Ratings)

In H- L-1

Hlstogram 3

37

37
1^1

16

16 17

11

2

3

^

1 0

3

.

1 0

5

6 7 a 9
I n dex Dumber
Totals
5

1 0

3

4

EdZL

8 9 10
Index Dumber
Totals
5

6

7

(Index number totals increasing with increasing
a p p r a i s e d effort)
The i n s t ructors r a t e d each student twice and each
rating was a s s i g n e d an index number 1, 2, 3*
p r e v iously described.
on a single

o r 5 &s

The index numbers for the two ratings

student were added to obtain an index number

iO oUl .
The d i s t r ibu tion of combined r a tings by the Basic 121
Instructors approxima tes a normal d i s t r ib ution while
Qj

the Basic

the higher

111 instructors is definitely

(more favoraole)

ratings.

that

skewed toward

These distrloutlons

show the same general p a t t e r n as the grade distrib utions
for all freshmen In Table 6 - 1 .
The tendency of the Basic 111 instructors to give the

-65students a fa v o r a b l e rati n g Is similar to the tendency of
the students themselves
ment sent to the
rating,

as was

(Histogram 1).

However,

the i n stru­

students f o rced them away fro m a medium

explained before,

w h e reas

the instrument

to the Basic 111 Instr uctors a l l owed un l i m i t e d choice.

sent
It

appears that there is a general tendency on the part of the
Basic 111 ins t r u c t o r s to give their
ings and grades.
of the A.C.E.

students favorable r a t ­

This tendency diminishes the effectiveness

P s y c h o l o g i c a l E x a m inat ion as a predictive

instrument and d e c reases the discri mination of low-effort nigh-effor t

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s d e t e r m i n e d for this study.

i. situation r e d u c e s

Such

the chance of establishing a pass -fall

line on a b a s i s of the A.C.E.

P s y c h olog ical E xamination

scores and p o o l e d effort ratings.
The fact

that the p o o l e d effort ratings reflect

shown in the Basic 111 instructors'
seen in the following g r aph

the bias

ratings of effort may be

(which also

shows other bias as

described later).
Graph _I
Fr e q u e n c y Dis tributions of P o o l e d Effort Scores
Basic 111
>,
o

20

S

15

Basic 121

S' 10
U

3 3 3

53

b

P o o l e d Effort

Scores

-66It m i g h t also be n o t i c e d that the

s t u d e n t s 1 skewed

ratings w h e n c o m b i n e d w i t h the symmetric ratings by

the

dormitory a s s i s t a n t s and the fairly normal ratings by the
basic 121 I n s t ructors have a tendency to give the
of skew to the p o o l e d effort
121 as was

ex h i b i t e d by

the

same type

score d i s t r ibut ion for 3asic
student rating distribu tion

itself.
When the

student

skewed ratings are combined wit h the

Basic 111 I n s t ructor ratings,
and the

skewed in the

same direction,

symmetric r a t ings by the dormitory assistants,

resulting d i s t r i b u t i o n is strongly

skewed in the

the

same d i r e c ­

tion, as is shown in the graph.
To answer

the q u e s t i o n that was of concern to the

basic College E d u c a t i o n a l R e s earch

Committee,

namely:

Is

it ^.ossicle to e s t a blish a pass-f ail point for grades given
in tne b a si c

College on a basis of the

lov.-ability

students?,

recei v e d by

the low-abilltp

ratln._; scores.

study effort made by

it was necess ary

students with their p o o l e d effort

This was done first by examining the two-way

frequency tables and then by testing the
differences betv.een the mean
h i g h -effort

to compare the grades

significance of the

scores r e c e ived bp

the low and

groups.

The answer in every case was

the

same — no

such p a s s —

fall point could be est a b l i s h e d on a basis of the data
obt ained in this study.

Such a c o n c l u s i o n ma y be c o n f i r m e d by exa mining the
following

two-way c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n

tables c o m p a r i n g p o o l e d effort rating
instructor,

a nd final

scores w i t h course,

examination grades given in Basic

111 and B a s i c 121:
Table 6 - 2
F o o l e d Effort R a t i n g Scores a n d Course Grades
R e c e i v e d in B a sic 111 a nd B a sic 121
Basic 111
Basic 121
A’

c
D

1

F
0

2

3

3

CD

2

5

16

15

9

1

3
1

9

11

17

5

2

3

B
C

CD
CQ

?■
15 29 43
57
71 85 100
Pooled E f f o r t Scores (Fercent)

T)

pi F
o
o

2

3
2

r =
seen that

5

l

2

5
17
1

18
14

6
16

2
3
1

0
15 29
43
F o o l e d E f fort

r = .22
It can be

1

4

2
1

57
71 85 100
Scores (Fercent)

. 1 7

the p o o l e d effort r a t ings are not

re l ated sufficiently to the course grades to be u s eful in
det ermining F grades.
that

For instance:

If it were decided

students in Basic 111 who r e c e i v e d an effort rating

of 29/» or b e l o w

should be failed and all other

who r e c e i v e d comparable
/ final exam score)
should also fail,
all but eight

course grades

students

(instructors'

as those r e c e i v e d by lo w — effort

then it can be

score
students

seen f rom the table that

students in this entire group w o u l d fail -

-68
even t h ough the m a i n g r o u p r e c e i v e d high er pooled effort
ratings.

This c o n t r a d i c t i o n

some other effo r t
This
and final

c a n n o t be r e s o l v e d by c h o o s i n g

score as a criterion.

same c o n d i t i o n is true w i t h instructors'

grades

e x a m i n a t i o n grades.
Table 6 — 3

Basic 111 E f f o r t E a t i n g
111

.

la A

3

u

1

8

11

o
7

5

11

23

21

■° D
o
n F

1

2

6

3

<3

1

5Pi D

1

1

zn

05
•H
r*«

1

3

11

13

5

3

5

13

19

8

O

1

5

O

5

3

1

p o o l e d Effort Score
(Percent) r = .05

a

F o o l e d E f f o r t Score
(Fercent) r = .35

1

1

:
2cS c
"i

3 C

1

. E xe

D
J3
3

i

.n

Scores a n d Grades Received i n 3asic
00

The B a s i c 111 i n s t r u c t o r s gave bu t two F grades

to

m e m b e r s of the l o w - a b i l l t y g r o u p - one in the lower hal f
of the

oool e d effort

score range,

half.

Ydiile the B a s i c

111 f i n a l

stiidents in the F category,
scale to such an extent
ship b e t w e e n

the other in the u p p e r
examinati on placed more

they were

that there

spread over the effort

seemed little r e l a t i o n ­

the grade F a n d the p o o l e d effort scores.

Cer tainly the table above does not indicate a pass-fail
p o i n t for B a s i c 111 on a b a s i s
scores.

of the p o o l e d effort r a ting

-69The c o r r e s p o n d i n g
tially the

table for B a s i c 121 p r e s e n t s essen­

same pattern:
Table 6 - 4

Basic 121 E f f o r t R a t i n g

Instructor e1 Irc.de

121 .

Scores and Grades R e c e i v e d in Basic
<K>
A

u

6

1

1

1

1

8

22

9

4

2

1

3 14

8

9

2

1

1

2

6
0 15 29 43 5'
P o o l e d Effor" t
(Percent) r .-

2
7 5 85 100
Sc:ore
.]L7

gJ

G B
o

2

4

1

1

IS c
c
■a d
03
w F

12

19

8

5

2

8

14

13

3

1

r-i

jS
U-t

o~
4

3
oj
g

4
2
0 15 29 43 57 7 1 85 100
P o o l e d Effort Scores
(Percent) i « .16

A g a i n the grades of F are d i s p e r s e d over a range of
p o o l e d effort

scores as are the p a s s i n g grades.

No pass-

fail p o i nt is apparent in the d i s t r ibutio ns above.
As f u r t h e r evidence that the c o n c lusio n f r o m these
observe.tions is valid,

the

statistical tests of the sig­

nificance of the di fference b e tween mean grades for p a r ­
ent p o p u l a t i o n s from w h i c h the

“low-effort"

•'high— e f f o r t M group were drawn,
difference at the 5/® level.
the two def i n i t i o n s for
cribed in chapter five.
be recalled,

show no

group and

significant

This is true under either of

Ml o w - e f f o r t " or

" h i g h - e f f o r t 11 des­

The second definition,

consider ed the

3 1

it might

individuals r e c e iving low—

-70est p o o l e d e f fort r a t i n g s as h a v i n g grades in the
effort

“low-

“ g r o u p w h i l e g r a d e s g i ven the 31 i n d i v i d u a l s r e ­

ceiving h i g h e s t p o o l e d effort r a t i n g s c o n s t i t u t e d the
“h i g h — e f f o r t “ group.

E ven grades given

students who

have r e c e i v e d such d i verse p o o l e d effort r a t i n g s cannot
be Judged as b e i n g

s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a c c o r d i n g to

the teets used.
Table 6 - 5
Mean Scores a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s for Groups of LowAbllity S t u d e n t s C l a s s i f i e d as Lovz-Effort a nd Hlg h - E f f o r t
(Instructors' Scores an d Final E x a m i n a t i o n Scores were
b a s e d on a 15 p o i n t Scale.
Course Grade Totals range
fro m 2 to 3 0 )

Type of Score

L o w - E f f o r t Group
3 1
individuals
r e c e i v i n g lowest
p o o l e d effort
r a t i n g scores
Mean
S.D.

H i K h - E f f o r t Group
31 i n d i v idua ls
receiving highest
p o o l e d effort
r a t i n g scores
S.D.
Mean

Ba sic 111
Instructors'

Score

Final E x a m i n a t i o n Score
Course Grade Total

7.71

1.73

9.45

2.04

4. 8 4

2.23

5.29

2.13

3.03 1 4.59

3.29

1 2 . 7 2

Basic 121
Instructors'

Score

Final E x a m i n a t i o n Score

1.7 7

6.42

2.10

5 .84

2 . 0 6

6 . 3 2

1.95

11.39

3.20

H
CO
«
Cj
H

Course Grade Total

5.55

3.64

M

-71ThiB table shows that in every instance the higheffort group received a higher mean score; however, the
differences are not sufficient to be statistically sig­
nificant at the 5# level.

It might be noted that the

mean course grade score received by the low-effort group
in Basic 111 would be given the letter grade of D while
the corresponding mean for the high-effort group would
receive a grade of C.

In Basic 121, mean course grades

received by both low and high-effort groups would have re­
ceived the D grade.
The fact that mean scores for the high-effort group
are consistantly higher than corresponding mean scores
for the low-effort group indicates that effort was, to a
small extent, being reflected in the marks given in Basic 111
and Basic 121.

Effort was not related sufficiently for

using it as a criterion

by which to make pass-fail Judg­

ments, however.
In Chapter five, care

was taken to point out the

underlying assumptions

for the tests of significance that

were used in analyzing

the data.

those assumptions were

not fully satisfied by the proced­

ures for collecting data.

It was recognized that

In spite of this, the tests

determined the same conclusion that was reached independ­
ently by the Basic College Educational Research Committee

-72
from study of the scatter diagrams upon which tables
6-2,

6-3*

6-4,

and 6 - 5

are based.

The original hypothesis of the Basic College Ed­
ucational Research Committee that ''among a group of stu­
dents, all low in ability, effort should be a significant
factor differentiating those who pass from those who fail"
is not necessarily refuted by the inability of this study
to establish a pass-fall point.

As has already been

pointed out, the study was not able to determine a group
of students who were "all low In ability".

It is also

probable that the pooled effort ratings were not accurately
estimating the effective study effort being made by the
students.

An attempt was made to get as complete an es­

timate as possible by recording information and observations
from several observers - each seeing the students'
effort from a different viewpoint.

study

However, by studying

the ratings from the various observers, it becomes obvious
that they are not rating the same variable.

For example:

Table 6 - 6
Correlations of Effort Ratings by the Various Observers
on the Same Low-Ablllty Students
Observer Classification

1.

2.*

3.

4.

.02

.16

.24

.21

.22

---

---4.

The Basic 121 Instructors

-

.59
^

-

73

-

It Is not surprising that there was so little agree­
ment between the various t y p e s of ratings.

They were ob­

tained. from different observers having differing amounts
of experience in making objective evaluations of student
effort, the observations w e r e made In different environmen­
tal situations, and the r atings were recorded on different,
non-standardized measuring Instruments.
made, prior to collecting data,

No attempt was

to obtain agreement among

the various observers as to what constituted study effort.
The self-evaluations of the students in the study
have, as a general rule,

l o w e r correlations with other

effort ratings than do estimates by any of the other
types of observers.

T h i s Is understandable In light of

their lack of experience I n comparing various study ef­
forts^ and in light of the personal subjectivity involved in
Judging their own performance.
The most agreement occurred between ratings by the
Basic 111 Instructors and those by the Basic 121 instructors
There were several factors that would foster agreement,
such as:

Both sets of r atings were recorded on the same

measuring instrument.

Both

sets of observations

lln connection with this It is interesting to note that
when the student ratings of their own study effort were
correlated with the number of hours per week they listed
as having used for studying their Basic 111, the correl­
ation was only .32.
F o r Basic 121 it was .35*
d

-7^were made in comparable classroom environments.

Both sets

of Judgments were made by experienced teachers, persons
well acquainted with the results of student effort.

But,

even though these factors favored similarity of rating,
the extent of that similarity was surprisingly small (.39).
When all of the factors promoting divergence among
the various effort ratings are considered, it is not too
difficult to understand why the correlations listed in
the table were so low.

It can also be seen why the pooled

effort rating as determined in this study might not rep­
resent the actual study effort put forth by the student.
The student made the only estimate of that total effort and
that estimate showed a definite bias; the other ratings were
but estimates of partial study effort, as observed in re­
stricted environments.
Even though the pooled effort rating was but a first
approximation to a perfect representation of the students1
effort, it did reveal some evidence that the hypothesis
proposed by the Basic College Educational Research Committee
might be Justified; however, it was too crude an approxi­
mation to be used for determining a pass-fall point.
While there was apparent

disagreement between ob­

servers as to what might constitute student effort, each

-75individual instructor seemed to have a definite idea as
to what the term meant.

The correlations between the

first and second ratings made by the Instructors were .81
for Basic 111 and .62 for Basic 121 paired ratings.

The

second ratings were made several weeks after the first and
were therefore based on more observations.

Student effort

or its overt appearance would probably not remain constant
during that interval.

For these reasons, the correlations

are considered to be relatively high.
Even though the Instructors recognize certain evidences
of effort being exhibited by their students, their appraisal
of effort is not reflected to any appreciable extent in the
grades that they give.

The correlation between instructor1s

rating of s t u d e n t s effort and Instructor's mark was only
•38 for Basic 111 and .22 for Basic 121.

Since these corre­

lations were so low, it is questionable that the Instructor's
appraisal of effort could be used as a basis for establishing
a pass-fail point.
following table:

The distributions are shown in the

-76Table 6 - 7
Frequency Distributions Tor Instructors1 Ratings of
Students1 Efforts and Instructors1 Grade
Basic 111
p

u
o
%-»
Vi

i

1

Basic 121

T

1

* 10

“S n r 1

3

1

v«
w

9

2

O 8
50
a 7
p
aJ
6

5 12 10

1

O

8

2

2 ii

2

9
•H

7

4

3

7

2

«

6

3

CQ 5
O
P 4
o

2

m
t*

5

2 13 19
1 9 7

p

o
3

4

3

5

P
a

3
1

2

W

6

9

Vi

9

p

4 23

U

3

=»

P 3
at
a
M 2

l
6

6
1

1

l

Instructors' Grade
r = .38

o

C

2

i

1

3
1

Instructors' Grade
r = .22

Here again It is not possible to establish a pass-fail
point, as was surmised from the correlations.

The F grades

are scattered throughout the various effort ratings.
Apparently "Effort" as it Is recognized and observed
by the instructors is not influencing the Instructors'
grading to any appreciable extent, and "Effort" as it is
indicated by the pooled effort ratings, while slightly re­
lated to achievement, Is not sufficiently discriminating
to be used for the establishment of a pass—fall point.

-77In investigating how instructors1 marks might "mean­
ingfully supplement" final examination grades, factors
other than effort were considered.

These factors were the

student's general attitude toward the course as appraised
by the Instructors, the Instructor’s judgment as to the
student's ability to master the skills and materials of
the course, and the student's stated Interest in the course*
It was felt that the impressions the instructor re­
ceived relative to the student's attitude and ability
might influence the grade given the student by that in­
structor.

The extent of that influence might be Judged

by examining the correlations of Instructors' ratings
with instructors'

scores and with final examination scores,

the latter correlation being used as an index of the re­
lationship between the variable that was rated and the per­
formance level of the student.

Any difference between the

two correlations will be examined to determine whether
final examination grades have been "meaningfully supplemen­
ted" by the instructors' marks with regard to the variable
under consideration.
The findings of this study relative to the Instructors'
appraisals of the students' attitudes are as follows:

-78-

Table 6 - 8
Correl&tlonB of Instructors1 Ratings of Students1 General
Attitudes Toward Basic 111 and Basic 121 with Instructors1
Harks and Final Examination Scores*
Basic 111 Basic 121
Ratings
Ratings
Type of Grade
Instructors' Harks

.40

.24

Final Examination Scores

.12

.07

It can be seen that the Instructors' marks do reflect
the Instructors' appraisal of student attitude to a greater
extent than do the final examination scores.
The student's general attitude toward the course should
Include many factors that are educationally desirable.

For

Instance, a good healthy attitude might include a desire
to learn more about the subject and how it relates to all
other of life's endeavors.

Such a desire might lead the

student, In future years, to continue his study and even­
tually become a leader in the field.
It might Indicate qualities such as cooperativeness,
a constructively critical attitude, or other equally worth­
while factors.

To the extent that the instructor* s Judg­

ment of the student's general attitude does take into
account factors of the type Just described, it can be
Interpreted that the instructors' mark is "meaningfully"
supplementing the final examination grade.

-79One of the factors that might enter into the students1
general attitude and about which Information has been ob­
tained is the student's interest in the course*

The

correlations found in this study between the student's
stated Interest in the course and the instructor's rating
of the same student's general attitude toward the course
are -.02 for Basic 111 and .05 for Basic 121.

Whatever

the Instructor's ratings Include, they do not reflect the
interest that the students claim to have in the course.
If the students are really interested to the extent that
they have Indicated, they are not conveying an impression
of that Interest to their Instructors in Basic 111 or
Basic 121.
Apparently the instructors have largely determined
their opinion of the student's general attitude by mid­
term.

This is indicated by the correlations between

their first and second ratings which were .71 for Basic
111 ratings and .67 for Basic 121 ratings.
Although each Instructor largely agrees with himself,
as shown above, there is little agreement between the
Basic 111 instructors as a group and Basic 121 instructors
in rating the same students' general attitudes toward
those respective courses.

For the low-abillty group, the

-80correlation was .39 and for the high—ability group as pre­
viously defined, it was *15.

This might tend to refute

the idea that students have a general attitude toward
studying or studies that largely determines their attitudes
toward specific courses.

They certainly do not claim to

have the same interest in both courses.
students'

The low-ablllty

stated interest in Basic 111 correlated but

.08 with their stated interest in Basic 121.

For the hlgh-

ablllty group, the correlation was .00.
It would appear from the findings above that the in­
structors' rating of the students' general attitudes do
relate more strongly to the instructors' mark than to the
final examination grade.
the students'

It apparently does not Indicate

stated Interest in the course.

It is a fairly

reliable measure and ln-so-far as it reflects educationally
desirable factors, it can be Interpreted as "meaningfully"
supplementing the factual and skill aspects of the final
examination grades.
The A.C.E. Psychological Examination proved to be a
poor predictor of the marks the students received in
Basic 111 and Basic 121.

The question arises:

Would the

Instructor's own estimate of the student's ability be a
better predictor?

This will be considered with some re—

81
lated questions,

such as:

To what extent does the In­

s tructor^ estimate influence the Instructor's mark?
Does the instructor's estimate of the student's ability
relate more strongly to the Instructor's mark than to
the final examination score?
Consider the following Information:
Table 6 - 9
Correlations of Instructors' Ratings of Low-Abllity
Students' Ability to Meet the Requirements of the Course
with Instructors' Marks and Final Examination Grades in
Basic 111 and Basic 121*
Baslo 121
Basic 111
Type of Grade
Ratings
Ratings
Instructors' Marks

,68

,62

Final Examination Grades

,20

.42

Again there is a greater relationship to the in­
structors' marks than to the final examination grades.
The correlations shown in this table are higher then
corresponding correlations for attitude and effort as
Indicated in Table 6 - 8

and in the discussion of effort

ratings, indicating greater relatedness between this
variable and marks than found for the previously discussed
variables.
It is entirely possible that the student's perform­
ance, his evidence of mastery of the skills and materials,
enters into the instructor's appraisal of that student's

lt,ted questions,
structor^

such as:

To wha t extent does the in­

estimate Influence the instru ctor's mark?

Does the instruct or*s
relate more

estimate of the

student*s ability

strongly to the i n s t r u c t o r * ? mark than to

"cne final e x a m i n a t i o n score?
Consider the f o l l o w i n g information:
Table 6 — 9
Correlations of Instructors* R a t i n g s of L o w - A b l l i t y
Students* A b i l i t y to M e e t the R e q u i r e m e n t s of the Course
v;ith Instructors' M a r k s a nd Final E x a m i n a t i o n Grades in
Basic 111 a n d B asic 121,
Ba sic 121
B a s i c 111
Type of Grade
Ratings
Ra t i n e s
Instructors'

Marks

F i nal E x a m i n a t i o n Grades

.68

. 6 2

.20

_____ ...

A g a i n there is a greater rela t i o n s h i p to the in­
structors*

m a rks than to the final examination grades.

The cor r e l a t i o n s

shown in this table are high e r than

correspond ing correlati ons for attitude and effort as
indicated in Table 6 - 8
ratings,

and in the d i s c u s s i o n of effort

i n d i cating greater r e l a t e d n e s s b e t w e e n this

variable a nd marks than f o u n d for the p r e v i o u s l y discussed
variable s.
It is entirely p ossi b l e
ance, his evidence
enters into

that the

of mastery of the

student's p e r f o r m ­

skills and materials,

the instructor's ap praisal of that

student's

-

ability to m a ster those
so,

there

82

skills and materials.

If this is

should he a h i g h correlation b e t w e e n the ratings

and the final examina tion grades.
Those c orrelations were higher than corresponding
correlations for the other two variables p r e v i o u s l y con­
sidered and higher than the correlations of A. C. E.
Psychologica l E x a m i n a t i o n w i t h final examination grades
(correlation of .0 6
However,

they are not as h i g h as the correlations between

instructors'
Only

for Basic 111 and .09 for Basic 121).

ratings of ability and instructors'

marks.

a p o r t i o n of the rating can be Justified as

being p r o v e n ability as shown by final performance.
indicates that,

to some

extent,

u n f u l fill ed promise of

mastery has Influenced the instructors'
extent of tnis influence,
"meaningfully"

This

marks.

the instructors*

supplement the final

In mailing their ratings of the
as was the case in rating attitude,

To the

marks do not

examination grades.
students'

ability,

each Instructor agreed

strongly with his own earlier ratings of the

same factor.

The correlations b e t ween first and second ratings were .85
for Basic 111 and .83 for Basic 121.
the instructors'
mid-term.

This,

Judgments were

This indicates that

largely determined by

coupled with the evidence of only partial

-83J u £tiricat 1 on Tor their a b i l i t y ratings,

strongly suggests

that the in structors were allov;ing early serf enhance by the
stuCents to unduly

inriuence

the determination of instructors'

marks for the quarter's v;crk.
educational

If this is true,

it has no

Justification.

It is r e c o g n i z e d that

in the field of human relations,

first impressio ns are important factors in later decisions
or actions,

and certainly

is v.ell w i t h i n that field.
that first
This

the teacher-pupil relationship
However,

in_ ressions car. be,
is net

to imply

it is also recognized

andfr ecuently are, wrong.

that the

instructors'

marks are

b eing de t e r m i n e d by* first I more _ h m . ., but the evidence
strongly

suggests that impressions made during the first

half of the quarter unduly influence

the instructors'

...irks*
The

s 1 1_-f v...?n t s above are based only on findings r e l a t i v e

to the lov.’-ability gruu^.

It is entirely possible that a

similar co m p a r i s o n .~ight lend to different conclusions for
cx l.igh-abilitp group.

To discover whether this v;as so, a

similar ana lysis was — tie

of the data pertaining to the

"1-1 gh-ability group" previously
us follows:

described.

The findings w e r e

— 84 —
Table 6 - 1 0
Correlations of Instructors' R a t i n g s of Hi gh-Ability
Students' A b i l i t y to Meet the Re quirements of the Course
with Instructors' Marks and Final E x a m ination Grades in
3asic 111 and Basic 121.
Basic 111
Basic 121*
Tyce of Grade
Ratings
Rat ings
Instructors'

Marks

.72

.52

Final Exa m i n a t i o n Grades

JtZ_

.14

-

..

♦Basic 121 Correlations are eased i yon only 24 students.
Since the correlations with. Basic 121 ratings are b a s e d
u.on so fev; cases,

the findings mi ;ht be less representative

of the larger p ’ou.

than is the case for Basic 111 ratings.

If the difference is actually as great as indicated, teacners
Brsic 121 appear

to be greu.tly overestimating

of their high-ability

students*

The Basic ill correlations
nbility jroup,

the ability

the instructor s'

indicate that for the highJud p.x-nt g of students'

ability are in agreement uith the evidence of ability shown
on the final examination.

When this Is considered with the

findings for the iow-ability students it appears that the
higher— ability

students exhibit a certain performance level

and tend to live up to it throughout the quarter, but the
lov;-ability students do not tend to live up to their early
^ erf or. .ance in the Communication Shills course.
the instructors,

However,

ap_.ar-ontly iu-.. In.j formed an estimate of

ability b a s e d upon the

student's early performance,

continue to hold to that opinion and seemingly allow it to
influence their marks.

in

-85Agaln there v;as very little agreement b e t w e e n ratings
by the Basic 111 instructors as a group and the Basic 121
instructors.
was .20,

For the low-ability group,

the correlation

and for the high-ability group it was

Apparently

.3

0

.

the early performance in Basic 111 is essenti­

ally d ifferent f rom early performan ce in Basic 121,
gardless of the s t u d e n t ’s ability level.
accounted for by the common acceptance

re­

Tills might be

that men are more

interested in science and do better in it than do v;omen,
ahile v;omen are more interested in communication
and do b e tter in them than do the men.
•:juli be a convenient device,
do not prove

it true,

subjects

Such an explanation

but the data of this study

although they tend to support it.
Table o - 11

The Means and Standard Deviations for Ratings Indicating
the Interest In Basic 111 and In Basic 121 Stated by Low
Ability M en and Low-Abllity Women.
M e n s ’ Ratings
Mean
S.D.

Sub .1ect
Coi.imunication Skills
Natural Science

W o m e n s ' Ratines!
Mean
S.D,.

4.18

1.00

4.41

1.00

. 3.67__

1.26

2 *52

1.38

The ratings were made on a six-point scale.
istical analysis

shows no significant

(5^ level)

Stat­
differ­

ence between the mean ratings by men and women for either
subject.
belief

However,

the trend is in accordance w i t h common

that women ore better in communications work, and

-86men are better In science.
Table 6 - 1 2
The Means a nd Standard Deviations for Course Grades Given
in Basic 111 and Basic 121 to Low-Abillty Men and LowAblllty Women.
M e n s ' Grades
Mean
S.D.

Sub .1e c t

W o m e n s 1 Grades
M e an
S.D.

13.0

3.11

14.8

Natural Science

1"- 4

4.42

12.0

j.38

o
o
•

Communication Skills

The w o m e n s 1 mean grade was significantly higher than
the mens'
mens'

mean grade in Communication Skills while the

mean grade was high er than the womens'

in Natural Science.
different

The means were not

mean grade

significantly

(5)£ level) f however.

The findings of this comparison by Itself do not oermit a definite

statement

that the different Interest patterns

and skills of the tv;o sexes is responsible for the low
correlations b e t w e e n the Basic 111 instructors'
students'
of the

ability and the Basic 121 Instructors'

same students'

ability.

However,

tween the sexes with r e gard to the

ratings of
ratings

any difference b e ­

skills and materials of

the respective courses would tend to reduce the correlation
of ability ratings by the two groups of Instructors.
In a further

study to see whether

might appear In the ratings given,
appeared:

sex differences

the following findings

-87Table 6 - 1 3
Means and S t a nda rd D e v i ations for Ratings and Scores Re
ceived by Low - A b i l i t y M en and Low - A b i l l t y Women.
Mens' R a t i n g s
or Scores
Mean
S.D.

lyce of R a t i n g or Score
A.C.E.

T e s t -Retest Average

111 instructors'
of E f f o r t

Rating

121 Instructors'
of E f f o r t

Rating

111 Instructors'
of A t t i t u d e

Rating

121 Instructors'
of Attit u d e

F.ating

ill Instructors'
of A b i l i t y

.iat i ng

121 Instructors'
of A b i l i t y

Rating

6.9k

2.2o

7.44

1.53

6.3.0

1.67

6.25

1.67

5. Oh

1.61

1.79

7.22

1.79 . . 7.46

1.70

6.71

1.33

6.33 . 1.30

5.5.4

-! C
^Hf■
1.
.

6.22 . -1.5-2

^ *4.7.

In only one

1

set of ratings was

ratings was

the Sasic ill instructors'

•;uen students
of meeting
ratings

Ap p a r e n t l y

of means.

That

_

set of

ratings of the stu-

ohe instructors felt

that th

in the low-ability group were more capable

the course requirements.

show

5.2.7. _ 1.67

there a statistically

(5,5 level)

*
bility.

difference

2
-

significant

t

Womens' Ratings
or Scores
Mean
S.D.

none of the other

such a m a r k e d difference.

nificant difference in ne:n

There was no sig­

score for the A.C.E.

P s y ch ol­

ogical E x a m i n a t i o n test-retest average between the men and
w omen l o w - a b i l i t y students.

•—N

'

-3Cn

Jack.sen*' re.orts
1 sychclogic&l

"The means of the men and wooer* on the

Test are not

® ^uuj v#c«c Du bp -* u__ on

significantly different."

u-.s ^ » ^<»n . ~ o c..wlo,'lca_ nxaii. 1 r.at 1 on

3c:re, r e c e i v e d during fall quarter,
129c wooer;,

His

some of w h o m were

He also reccrts that

1972 by 166? aen and

students involved in this

"h.S.C.

study.

freshmen wooer. Have a sir-

nil leant!:.- higher mean on the cngllsh teat and the r.eadir.a

Is entirely
r >i r
^ a w

c * ■ '■ o ■*' *' — v»

4 ^
V W

ocssiuce

^ V
■
1.4 >

*.

ti.at t..

C .. t — u..

.£Ut£ of Cu>ulc 111.
C

U_ —

.

t..e ir.stru ct or^ urn"

O-- . J- Oj

3 to meeting

wU'^y

the requirecor.-

.natior. rrale s riven, in

C- “

e v i a t i o r. •
:cores .-.ecelveo b;
Lov-.-.cilitv *.,'ooer. in Basic 111 and

w O c i * -•>-4.o-— .

Itv-.-.bility hen
.,-.e of ccore
* "

.0.4

areas;

*CLC J_ 0
C

w I..

.1 -it of evller.ee,

_ sub'ect matter

— *

*«

-*■r»* « ^ ^ vk - 1 r r.^ m D

Score

hens* Scores
**»0c-.*"* 3.1.
C # wc

c.ci

i. 72

121 Final examin a t i o n
Score

0 .7.1

<-» m*^

Scores
c .-•.
1.7 c

2•

5. o2

121 I n s t r u c t o r s 1 Score

V,'omens'
n e an

2. *r3

O » c*

2_. 17- .

89-

-

Cnly In the first

set of scores is there a signif­

icant d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the means.

The Instructo rs in

Basic 111 gave

students

higher

scores

the l o w — ability w o me n

than they gave the lov-ability men

This was consistent w i t h their ratings of the
ability.

significantly

However,

the final

students.

students'

examination scores in Basic

111 failed to show any significant difference b e t w e e n the
— can scores for the two groups.

Tice table does

women r e c e i v i n g a larger near: score,
o , -u

but not sigr.ilicantly

i.it I’1 i m u — CAm.j.ic-il viu >

bice:, the Basic

111 instructors'

final e x a m ination score,
grade,

shov; the

also

score v.-as added to the

the composite,

called the course

shoved a significant difference b e t w e e n means

for the men - vomer: groups

(see Table 6 - 1.1).

In a n a lyzing all of the ratings and grades
uctors

or obta ined m

those given men to those
evident:

final

giver, women,

In every instance but

v.umer to rate b e tte r

one,

by comparing

the follo wing appears
the tendency was for

than — en ir. Ccm:unication Shills and

vice versa in natural
major exceptions

examinations,

given by

Science.

However,

with but two

the difference b e t ween mean r atings or

scores was not statistically
t-,m exceptions were
c

significant

(5,1- level).

Tice

in the Basic 111 i n s t r u c t o r s 1 ratings
w *

ct*

i vt

—

.±

I**.*-

«* •- . m.

i.11

i u b

b-

a t

ub -

rt

-90marks.

Since the final examination scores in Basic 111

failed to show a significant difference between the m e n s 1
mean score and the w o m e n s 1 mean score,

it is questionable

v/hether such a big difference existed as was indicated
b y the i n s t r u c t o r s 1 marks.
actually exist,
instructors'
ally.

If such a difference did not

then there was a factor entering into the

marks that could not be Justified education­

If it aid actually exist,

the final examination

was too w eak to show It.
As a further test of the validity of the Instructors'
ratings of the students*
high-ab ility group were
low-ebillty group.

ability,

the ratings given the

compared with the ratings given the

The findings were as follows:
Table 6 — 15

The Means and Standard Deviations for Ratings of Students'
Ability on 114 Low ar.d ? l Hlgh-Ability Students by the
Basic 111 and Basic 121 Instructors.
Ratings on
Low-Ability
Students
Type of Rating

Ratings on
K 1 g h - A d 111ty
Students

Mean

S.D.

Mean

1.64

7. 3 6 .. 1..52

1-58

7.50 . .1.67

111 Instructors'

Rating

5.JZ-7

121 Instructors'

Rating

5*2$.

.

S.D.

In the first case there was no significant difference
(5^ level)

between the mean ratings given txie two groups.

-91The

second set of ratings,

however,

shoved a significant

difference b e t w e e n the means for the l o w - ablllty and hlghability groups.
could not see
lov-ablllty

A p p a r e n t l y the Basic

111 instructors

sufficient difference b e t w e e n the h i g h - a n d

students to make that difference

significant.

The Basic 121 i n s t ru ctors did see significant ability
differences b e t w e e n the two-abili ty groups.
analyses,

however,

the

In b o t h

t ratio was very close to the

critical value.
To see w h e t her the marks given also reflect
same abil ity

judgments,

the

the fo llowing information was

obtained:
Table 6 - 16
Means and Standard Deviations of Instructors' Scores Given
to 117 L o v - A b l l l t y Students and 23 Hig h - A b i l i t y Students
by Their Basic 111 and Basic 121 Instructors.
Scores Given
Low— A b ili ty Students

Scores Given
High - A b i l i t y Students

Subject

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

3asic 111

6.59

2.10

10.65

2 . 2 6

Basic 121

6.45

2.47

„

......

, .

2.21

In b o t h cases there was a significant difference b e ­
tween the means for the two groups.
marks,

both

sets of Instructors

In giving end-of-quarter

saw differences bet ween the

two abilit y groups that p r o v e d to be

statlstlca.lly significant.

-92When b o t h tables are c o n s idere d together,

it w o u l d

seem that b o t h the Basic 111 and Basic 121 Instructors
found d i f f erence s in abi lity b e t w e e n the h l g h - a b i l l t y stu­
dents as a group and the low-abllity
Basic 111 instructors,

students.

However,

the

in accordance with their general

tendency to rate all students favorably,
groups that b a r e l y

gave abil ity r a t ­

ings to the

tw o

showed "no significant

difference"

at the 5a> level of confidence.

One ad d i t i o n a l factor was thought to have a contribu­
tion to make
cclaposition.

to the over-all picture

of grades and their

One of the major problems in teaching is

i:.otiVc.tion and the

student's interest in the subject is

considered to be a motivational factor.

However,

previous

studies as r e p or ted by Cole^ failed to show much r e l a t i o n ­
ship b e t w e e n

the interest

that was indicated by

and the grades that he received.
study were

of this

student

The findings of this

in agreement with the other

The findings

the

studies mentioned.

study are as follows:

I'Cole, Luella, The B a c k g r o u n d for College T e a c h i n g .
Farrar and Rhinehart, Inc., 19^0, pp. 226-228.

-93Table 6 - 1 7
Jorrelatione B e t w e e n E n d of Quarter Scores and L o w - Ability
students' Stated Interest in Basic 111 and Basic 121.
Students* Stated
Interest in
the Course

Ivue of Score
Score

.35
i
»
o
H

Jasic 111 Instructors*

kisic 111 F i n a l E x a m i n a t i o n Score
iasic 121 Instructors*

Score

.24

a.sic 121 Final E x a m i n a t i o n Score
It would
.11 is nost
;ci’v st.

appear that the Instructors*

strongly relr ted to the

;1? students

to sound more

At most,

a .at tney

score in Basic

students'

stated in**

P o s s i b l y this is Influenced by the Instructors'

n'nernl tendency to ^rade favorably

tudvrnts*

..... .............. .

and the tendency of

interested than they really are.

there is little relationship b e t w e e n the

stated interest and the end-of-quarter

scores

t,

Cole** concludes

"One reason for the low relationship

a? tween interest and marks may be that once a student is
;ver the

'threshold*

of enthusiasm,

rtimulat ed to pass his work;

he is sufficiently

the grade he receives is,then,

;riu: rily a function of his ability and his p r e vious prepiwtion for the c o u r s e . "

CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSIONS A N D RE C 01-II-IENDAT ION S
Tills study was p r i m a r i l y concerned with the problem
of establishing,

if possible,

pass-fa il points for Basic

111 and Basic 121 on a basis of appraisals made of the
effort put forth by low-ability students.

The general

hypothesis prop o s e d by the Basic College Educational
Res earch Committee was that
all low in ability,

11among a group of students,

effort should be a significant factor

diffe rentiating those who pass from those who fail."
The findings of this

study lead to the conclusion

that it Is not possible with the instruments and tech­
niques h e rein described to establish such pass-fail points.
One of the reasons for tills conclusion was the inability
to predict which students were of truly low ability.

As

a result,

stu­

the low-ability group included many capable

dents - students who were not in danger of failing whether
they put forth great effort or not.
Another reason for the conclusion was the inability to
obtain a p o o l e d effort rating that truly represented the
students'

study effort.

There se.-med to be little agreemen

among the various observers as to the effort that was being
made.

Even the ratings by the Basic 111 and Basic 121 In­

structors v:ere little related,
for being

siiail r.

though they had many reasons

Low relationships betv;esn the self-

-95mtings

of the

students and the r a t ings by other obser­

vers could b e readily
in rating

explained in light of differences

instruments,

observation,
difference s

differences

differences

in opportunities for

in experience

in objectivity.

backgrounds,

Other factors

and

such as a

general bi a s toward the more favorable ratings by the
studen us and oy t.nelr Basic 111 ins ui'uctor1s also ue —
cr= -..~ed the extent to w h i c h the p o o l e d effort ratings
d i s c r i m i n a t e d betv;een the grade levels.
In d i v i d u a l ratings
of students'

effort were

such as the i n s t r u c t o r s 1 ratings
little better

than the p o oled

effort r a t i n g s for the _urgose of establishing a passfail point.

In fact,

t'.veen instructors'
those

same

there was little r e l a tion ship be-

rating of effort and the marks given by

instructors,

have b ee n expected.

where greater corre sgondence alight

A p p a r e n t l y the Basic 111 and Basic

lhl instru ctors did not allow their opinions as to the
students'

effort to Influence a p p r e ciably the murks that

they gave the
While

student at the end of the quarter.

the evidence

shown In chapter six suggests that

the p r o p o s e d hypo thesis might be valid,
over-all q u a ntity of effort,
of that quant itative

gross

effort,

the

or the p h y sical m a n i f e station

effort seemed to have little relation-

-96ship to either the instructors'
nation scores.

This

marks or the final exami­

suggests that more r e f ine d instruments

must De d e v e l o p e d to measure

effective effort before a pass-

fail point can oe established on a b a s i s of student effort.
The conc lusion r e a c h e d in this study relative to the
estaollshment

of a p a s s -fail point

was in agreement with

the c o n c l u s i o n r e a c h e d independently by the Basic
Ed u c a tional R e s e a r c h Committee.
present,

at least,

They state:

College

"For the

there appears to be no solution to the

p r o b l e m of grading by attempting to relate a pass-fa il point
to the effort made by

students.

It is clear

that even the

lowest ability

students admitted to the col]ege have oppor­

tunity to make

satisfactory grades - ever. E's are not u n ­

common among this group - but the more obvious and overt
aspects of effort or applicatio n seem unr elated to a c hieve­
ment as a p p r a i s e d either by instructors or by examinations."
The
relative

secondary concern of this

to three factors other than effort,

which the instructors'

marks

final examination scores.
was the

study was to investigate

"meaningfully

The first

s t u d e n t ’s general attitude

the extent to

supplement"

the

such factor considered

toward the course as

Basic College E d u c ational Research Committee, The A s s i g n ­
ment of Term harks in the Basic C o l l e g e . Mi me o g r a p h e d
fteporT7 M i c h igan 3taTe College, M a r c h 1953, 9 h u m b . leaves.

-97appralsed by

the Instructors.

It was round,
instructors'
scores.

w i t h respect to this factor,

marks did supplement the final examination

To the extent that the instructors'

the students'

appraisals of

general attitude toward the course were b a sed

upon educ a t i o n a l l y wo rth-while traits,
the instructors'
examination

that the

marks

habits,

"meaningfully"

or attitudes,

supplemented the final

scores.

It was found that there was a stronger relationship
between the instructors'

ratings of the

attitude and the instructors'
ratings and the final
as evidence
the final

students'

marks than b e t ween those same

examination

scores.

This was taken

that the i n s t r u c t o r s ’ marks were

examination

general

supplementing

scores in the determination of the

course grade.
The one possible component of the
attitude about which this
the students'

students'

general

study obtained information was

interest in the course.

Interest in the course h a d little,

The students'

if any,

stated

influence on the

ratings g i ven by the Instructors relative to the

students'

general attitude

studies

have

toward the course.

Since other

shown little relationship b e t w e e n toe

students'

est in a course and their ability to achieve
the alight relationship found in this

inter­

in the course,

study between

students'

-98stated I n t e r e s t and Instructors'

r a t i n g s of students'

al attitude m i g h t m e a n that more

e d u c a t i o n a l l y wor t h w h i l e

f a ctors w er e
this were
fully"

true,

the f i nal

marks did

students'

marks was

"meaning­

the instructors'

"meaning ­

scores by the

Judgments as to

a b i lity to meet the r e q u i r e m e n t s of the course.

It was decided,
that the instructors'
students,

the fac tor of

If

exa m i n a t i o n scores.

s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n of final ex a m i n a t i o n

ability

ratings.

second factor c o n s i d e r e d in the study of

instructors'
the

then the instructors'

s u p p lement

The
ful"

the b a s e s for the Instructors'

gener­

upon

examining

marks did supplement,

the fi nal

ex amination

student ability.

in: ;fu l l y 11 sup element

the evidence of the study,
for

the lo w -

scores rel ative

H o w e v e r . they di d not

the f ixial ex amination

to

"mean-

scores.

There w as a stronger r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the i n s t r u c ­
tors'

ratings

of the low-ability

stulents'

a b i lity to meet

the r e q u i r e m e n t s of the course and the Instructors'
than b e t w e e n
scores.

those

same ratings a nd the final

Tills was taken as evidence

m e n t a t i o n b e t w e e n the instructors'
n a tion

scores for the lo w - a b i l i t y

marks

examination

that there was

supp l e ­

marks and the final e x a m i ­
students.

The evidence was c o n t r a d i c t o r y in the case of highabi llty

students.

There was about

b e t w e e n the Basic

111 instructors'

the

same r e l a t i o n s h i p

r a t ings of the

students'

-99abillty a nd the B a sic 111 instructors'

scores as b e t w e e n

those r a t ings and the B a s i c 111 final examination scores.
However,

there was extensive difference between the c o r r e s ­

p o n d i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s f or Basic 121.

Since this latter

set of r e l a t i o n s h i p s was b a s e d upon only 24 cases,

it was

di s c o u n t e d as p o s sibly not r e p r e s e n t i n g the true situation
for all h i g h - a b i l l t y students.
It a p p e a r e d that the Basic 111 instructors were b a s ­
ing their r a t i n g s of s t u d e n t s 1 ability upon the evidence
of p e r f o r m a n c e

obtained early in the quarter.

The high-

abi llty students seemed to live up to that estimate of their
ability and to p e r f o r m at about the
examination.

The low - a b i l i t y students,

fall short of their instructors'
the final examination.
however,
dents'

seemed to

The Basic 111 Instructors'

marks,

rating of the stu­

abil ity to a greater extent than did the final ex­
scores,

as to the

students'

instructors'

i n d i c a t e d that the instructors'

score.

Judgment

ability was u n d u l y influencing the
It therefore,

seemed that the instruc­

score co n t a i n e d an element of u n f u lfilled promise of

achievement.
tors'

however,

estimates when they took

r e f l e c t i n g the instructors'

a m i n ation

tors'

same level on the final

marks,

If this were
while

so,

then to an extent the lnstruc

supplementing,

were not

supplementin g the final examination
m e a n ingful

supplementation

scores.

"meaningfully"
This n o n ­

seemed to be greater in extent

-

than the

100-

" m e a n i n g f u l 11 supple mentation of either

student

effort or student attitude.
In an attempt to discover why there

should be

so little

agreement b e t w e e n the Basic 111 instructors'

ratings of

students'

r a t ings of the

same

a b i l i t y and Basic 121 instructors'

students'

ability,

a study was made of the various ratings

and marks or scores to see whether w o m e n and men were b eing
appra ised or gra ded differently.

It was found that only the

Basic 111 instructors were able to see differences in ability
and p e r f o r m a n c e b e t w een the
tic ally significant.

sexes that prov e d to be statis­

The women receiveu. iilgher mean ratings

and mirks fro m the Basic

111 instructors than did the men.

This in spite of the fact

that the

same Instructors could see

no di f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the sexes on any of their other ratings
that were

statistically

significant and the fact that the Basic

ill final e x a m inat ion scores showed no statistically signifi­
cant differe nce b e t we en them.
The evidence did suggest that the low-ability women
were doing

somewhat b e t t e r work in Basic 111 than the low-

ability men a nd that f r e s h m e n women generally were
ficantly b e tt er in Engli sh then freshmen men.
the extent

superior to men in the

c omprehen sions relating

to Communication

not

However,

to

that the Basic 111 instructors allowed a general

opinion that women were

the in marks

signi­

giver, to low-abilit y

skills and

Skills to influence

students,

those marks did

" m e a n i n g f u l l y 11 supplement the final examination scores.

-

101-

The third factor that was studied In considering
"meaningful"

supplementation b e tween Instructors'

and final examination

scores was the

students'

marks

stated

interest In the course.
The f i n d i n g s were

such that no general conclusion

could be r e a c h e d wit h r e g a r d to this factor.

The

students'

stated Interest In the course was r e l a t e d to about the same
extent to Instructors'

mark and to final

in the case of Basic 121.

examination score

It seemed that no supplementation

occurred in this instance.
However,

In the case of Basic 111,

a greater relationship
and instructors'

betw een

students'

marks than between

est and f i n a l examination scores.
be

some supplementation;

its meani n g f u l n e s s
b e t w e e n that

since

however,
there was

general attitude.

ship might be accounte d for b^
student

seemed to be

stated Interest

students'

stated Inter­

Thus there appeared to
it was questionable as to
so little relationship

stated interest and the Instructors'

of the students'

the

there

rating

The greater r e l ation­

the tendency on the part of

to appear interested and the ten-ency on the

part of the Basic 111 instructors to give more favorable
marks.

At least,

the evidence was inconclusive.

-

102-

RECOMMSKDATIOH S
If the B a s i c College or some other

educ ational unit

desires to es t a b l i s h a p a s s - f a i l p o i n t on the b a s i s of
student

effort,

it is the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n of this

they first f i n d or develo}) a b e t t e r pr e d i c t i v e
for the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of truly low— ability

study that

Instrument

students.

ful c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be g i ven to the question:
p r e d i c t i o n of gene ral ac ademic a b i l i t y be

Care­

Will a

sufficie ntly d i s ­

c r i m i n a t i n g to be u s eful for selecting p e r s o n s low in the
a b i lities r e q u i r e d for the course under consider ation?
is entirely p o s s i b l e

It

that effort wil l not disc r i m i n a t e b e ­

tween those who

should p ass and those who

should fail u n ­

less all of the

students are low In the p a r t i c u l a r abllltles

that are r e q u i r e d for the p a r t icular course.
It is also r e c o m m e n d e d that they develop or fin d b e t t e r
instruments for obtaining data on the
fort.

students'

study ef­

There are two aspects of effort that should be c o n ­

sidered,

the q u a nti ty and the quality.

Most of the ratings

obt ained for this study dealt w ith quantity.

For Instance,

the d o r m i t o r y a s s i st ants had no way of k n o w i n g h ow
ly students m i ght be

studying —

e f f e ctive­

they could only report on

a oasis of h a v i n g

seen the

of studying.

students themselves could report only that

they h ad

The

studied 11some"

students go through the motions

or "quite a bit"

or something else

-103lndicating quantity.
It Is pos sible that a quantity rating might be
ficient to discriminate
low— ability

suf­

Detween the grade levels if truly

students are Involved.

However,

instructors'

ratings in this study h a d such a slight relationship
all

scores,

l fc. X o

Including

the instructors'

mark,

to

for a relative

oto llity group that it is questionable w h e ther a suf­

ficiently

strong rel a t i o n s h i p w o u l d be found for truly low*

ability students.
A quality rating on the students'

effort might have

a greater chance of discr l m i n a t i n g between p a s s i n g and
f a l ling students titan a quantitative rating.

However,

such a q u a l itative r a t i n g will be more difficult

to ob­

tain than a quantitati ve rating of the students'

effort.

The Basic
has

College,

in its statement of general policy’,

stated that the Instructors'

grades will be determined

in the f o l l o w i n g manner:
The instructor's grade will be b a s e d on such
evidence as is, in his judgment, appropriate and
is in accordance w ith policies de termined by his
department and/or the dean.
Instructors' grades arid examination grades
should meaning fully supplement rather than d u p l i ­
cate each other.^

2oasic College.
p olicies and r r o c e d u r e s for Term End
Examliiatlons and Tern Grades in the Basic C o l l e g e . Unpub 11 ie c*. Bo mid e u»
rjtatc Cullege . lg num d .
leaves.

-104The T i n d i n g s or this study indicate that in the case- or
low— ability

students,

some i n s t r u c t o r s 1 marks appear to "be

inf luenced oy ihctors t^at are not meaningful
general purpos e

or the Basic College.

in light or the

With this in mind,

iv;o r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s are made.

ir the Basic College desires to live up to its state­
ment or general policy,

an'extensive

study

should be made

to discover what ract ors are operative in the determination
of instructors'
students.

marks T o r all students - not Just low-ability

The ractors

should then be evaluated as to their

m e a n i n g r u l n e s s in light

or the p u r p o s e s or each department

and or the college.
Secondly,

an in-service p r o g r a m should be established

so that bas ic College

instructors who are successrul in

observing a nd m e a s u ring

those ractors w h i c h have been

a c c epted as m e a n ingful might heir: train others in the
necessary techniques.
Should the recomm e n d a t i o n s of this study be followed,
it is likely

that the grading system would be improved

and that the instructional staff would become more capable
of p r o m oti ng
the Basic

the objectives of general education for which

College was founded.

SE L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Basic College.
P o l i c i e s and P r o c edures for Ter m End
E x a m i n a t i o n s a nd T erm G r a d es in the Basic~5ollege.
U n p u b l i s h e d Booklet.
Michigan SlTa^e '(JollegeT
l^*
N u m b . 1 e av e s .
Basic College E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Committee.
The
As s i g n m e n t of Term M a r k s in the Basic C o l l e g e .
M i m e o g r a p h e d Report.
M i c higan state College.
13
Muub. leaves.
(May, 1 95G).
Basic College E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Committee.
The
A s s i g n m e n t of Term M arks in the Basic C o l l e g e . M i m e o ­
graph ed Report, M i c h i g a n State College, M a r c h 1953,
9 Numb. leaves.
B o a r d of E x a m i n e r s , Summar.v of B a s i c C o l l e g e C o u r s e
Grades.
M i c h i g a n S t a t e C o l l e g e , Ja n. 21, 1953*
B r o w n , H u g h S.
D i f f e r e n t l a l P r e d i c t i o n b y th e A. C . S .
J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h k b : 1 1 6 - 1 2 1 .
Oct. 1$50.

Cole, Luella.
The B a c k g r o u n d for College T e a c h i n g .
Farrar and Rinehart, 19-r0, d o pages.
Dres.-el, P a u l L. a n d O t h e r s .
Comprehensive Examina­
t i o n s in a P r o g r a m of G e n e r a l E d u c a t i o n . M i c h i g a n
State Co l l e g e Press, East Lansing.
19^-9.
l o p PP.
F r o e h l i c h , G u s t a v J.
a c a d e m i c P r e d i c t i o n at the U n i ­
v e r s i t y of V / i s c o n s l n .
J o u r n a l of A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n
of C o l l e g e R e g i s t r a r s 1 7 : 6 5 - 7 6 .
Get. 1961.

Jackson, Robert a.
A Report on tlie R elatlonshlo of
O r i e ntation Test Scores and F i r s t -Ter m Grade Point
A v e r a g e 3 . M.3.C. B o a r d of Examiners, 10 Numb, leaves.
Leaf, Curtis T.
Pr e d i c t i o n of College M a r k s .
of E x p e r imental E d u c a t i o n o:3G3-7.
I960.

Journal

Caborne, R. T r a v i s , S a n d e r s , Nh B. a n d G r e e n e , J. E.
T h e Differen tial P r e d i c t i o n of College Marks b y A . C . E .
Scores.
Journal of Educational R e s ea rch 6 6 :1 0 7 - l l d
Q,uaid, T. D. D.
F r e shman M a r k s .
6 :350-75.
1936.

A Study in the Pre diction of College
J o u rnal of E x o e rimen tal Education

- 106 13.

Tnorndlke, E. L.
The n a t u r e . Purpose and General
M e t hods of E d u c a t i o n a l P r o d u c t s . Chapter Two In 1 7 th
Yearbook, national Society for the Study of Education,
Part 2, p. 16.

1^.

Thurstone, L.
of Attitude.
1 1 1 .
1929.

L. and C h a v e , E. J.
Tlie Measurement
University of Chicago Press, Chicago,

15.

Vagner, liazie E. and Strabel,
formance In College E n g l i s h .
R e s e a r c h 30*. o 9^-9.
1937.

16.

Vagner, 1-iazie E. and Strable, E.
P r e d icting Success
in College P h y sical 5 c l e n c e s .
Science E ducation
19:4-9, 1933.

E.
P r e d icting P e r ­
J o u r n a l of Educational

AP P E N D I X

li >r

istructors

rS L \

;• .HI J A 'i

department:

Course No.

Your Basic College Research Committee, at the request of Dear. Erickson, is now
imaged in a study of student achievement. It is of utmost importance to this
,udy that you make as accurate an appraisal of________
as you can
, this time. Flease return this rating when completed to the Head of your Departme
Please indicate how this student impresses you by placing a
ieck ( v O mark at the proper place along the scale line; and
Lso indicate the basis for your rating.

Check < ✓ > thO£
boxes below where
you have no basi;
for a judgment;

,udent»s Ability to meet the requirements of this course:
Verv Low^

mi

Average
4.------- f---—

f

Hating is based upon;
(Check-s/Cne)

/

.r

.
i.
-------- 1

fdery limited
observation

,

c

High
fVery
-------- 1— ----

^Sufficient
'observation

,

..Extensive
"observation

rrlent's Effort toward mastering the skills and materials of this course:
Mot
Trying
4------ r_y.— ---

Doing
a Pair 4-Amount
.
V.orking Very.Hard
-f .
— ;--- 1 - ----- f --------- --------- f
- 4-------

^ --------- 4 ---

.Hating is based upon:
(Check*/ One)

tu l e n t 's ge ne ra l

(

Attitude

Very Foor

h------r------ *----

+- -

Fating is based upon;
(Check/*One)

/

)Very limited
observation
tow ar d

th i s

Ordinar1'-

-

♦ —

^ ^Sufficient

( ^Extensive

observation

observation

course;

*

f----- ■— +—

\Very limited
observation

Very Coed

---- *------ —

/ \Sufficient
observation

j__

^ ^Extensive
observation

ow often has this student completed assigned work by the late that it was due?
Never

Oocastonally

rat. in?- is be sod upci.j
(Check^Onc)

.Very limi'ted.
observation

n

Frequently
,

vSufficient ,
observation

% Extensive
observation

ow often has this student done more than just the work that was assigned?
f’over

Occasional ly

h 'itin g is based upon; /
(Ch'CkV^One)

\V e ry limited
observation

_ Frequent-)y
/

_________

-.Sufficient /
observation

Always

t

\Extensive
observation

he amount of extra help requested by this student:
No Ex t r a
___
tome
Much___________ An Excessive
alp."
Amount
f a letter gra lo wcrr to be placet upon this student *s work so far in the course
h
a
t g
ra
te w
oul; it b
e
?

Pmments;____________________________________ ___

Use the back of this blank for additional comments if desired.

ar Student:
The Basic College Research committee is making a study to see if the interest
at students take in their Basic College courses is related to the studying that
ey are doing for those courses. To get an over-all picture, it is necessary to
estion a few students that are representative of the general student body. You
ppen to be one of the students selected to represent your group. An accurate
sponse to the questions below will be greatly appreciated by the Research Committee
The information that you give will be kept strictly confidential and will in no
y influence the grades that you receive. Accompanying this sheet is a self
dressed envelope in which to seal your reply. Give the sealed letter to your
structor before you leave the classroom. He will place it in the Camous Mail
thout opening it.

Basic 111

Section

ease check (V) the phrase that most nearly indicates your general interest in the
urse named:
Communication Skills____ Bas 1c 111
X ) Not interested at"'all.
( ) Hardly interested.
( ) Somewhat interested.
( ) Quite interested.
( ) Very interested.
( ) Exceedingly interested.

Natural Science_____ Basic 121
X J-”Not interested at all.
( ) Hardly interested,
( ) Somewhat interested.
( ) Quite interested.
( ) Very interested.
( ) Exceedingly interested.

eck (v/ ) the words in the sentences below that best describe your studying for your
sic courses so far this quarter:
{( )a little
j
'( )some
f
studied i ()quite a bit( earlier in the quarter.
) very nard J

^( )less
?
I am studying % ( )the same, new,
/J ) more
'

...
,
‘Basic 111
v much time on the average have you spent each v.reek in studying for 'gas-jc ^21 ---

v much help with your Basic
Ls quarter? Check (\/ ) the
Basic 111: ( ) None
Basic 121: ( ) None

studies have you obtained from other students so far
phrase that most nearly indicates the amount.
( ) Some
( ) Quite a bit
( ) A great deal
( ) Some
( ) Quite a bit
( ) A great deal

i much extra help with your Basic studies have you obtained so far this quarter from
itructors, tutors, dormitory assistants, etc.? Check (v/) the phrase that most
irly indicates the amount.
Basic 111: ( ) None
( ) Some
( ) Quite a bit
( ) a great deal
Basic 121: ( ) None
( ) Some
( ) Quite a bit
( ) A great deal

STUDY ATTRIBUTES CHECK LIST
ormitory:

Room Number:

Assistant:

The Basic College Research Committee is making a study of how student grades are
slated to attitudes and study habits. It is of utmost importance to the study thal
au make as accurate an appraisal o f _________________________ as can be done at tJ
Lme. Information reported on this sheet will be held in strict confidence by the
ssearch Committee. Please return the completed sheet to your Residence Advisor^
Please check (»✓ ) those expressions which best answer the question as far as the
sove named student is concerned. If none of the expressions classify the student 1
jur satisfaction, please write your appraisal in the blanks provided.
> what extent has this student been studying?
Not at all ( )
Very little ( )_______________________________________
About as much as
most students do ( )
Quite a bit ( )
Very hard ( )'
I have no basis for a judgment at this time. ( )
’ the amount of studying done by this student has shown any change so far this tent
lat has been the general nature of that change?
His studying has
increased during this term
( )__ _________________________
His studying has
decreased during this term
( )
His studying has been sporadic so far this term ( )___________________________
I have no basis for a judgment at this time. ( 5
lich of thefollowing attitudes does this student have towards any or all of his
/udies:
Hates ^
course "work. ( )
some of his course work. ( )
________________________________
,
(all of his course work. ( )
uisiiKes *^sone of his course work. ( )_______ ________________________________
.. ..
, Jail of his course work. ( )
Apathetic towards^3 OIne
j^s course work. ( )
of‘ his course work. ( )
niK.es j some of his course woi’k. ( )
Tn w , Tal1
his course work. ( )v
\some °f his course work. ( )_____________________________ _____________
I have no basis for a judgment at this time. ( J~
at is your estimate of the number of hours per week that this student spends
udying? __
I have no basis for a judgment at this time. ( )
w much extrahelp with his studies doesthis student seek from other students?
None ( )
Some ( )
Quite a bit ( )
A great deal ( )
I have no basis for a judgment at this time. ( )
w much extra help with his studies does this student seek from instructors, tutors
rmitorv assistants, etc.?
None ( )
Some ( )
Quite a bit ( )
A great deal ( )
I have no basis for a judgment at this time. ( )
e judgments above are based upon what information or observations?