INFO RM ATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1 .T h e sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photaing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE N OTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms International 3 0 0 North Z eeb Road Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48 1 0 6 USA St. John’s Road. Tyler’s Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England H P 10 8H R 77- 11,6 4 3 FEATHERSTONE, Jane Scott, 1920POSSIBLE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ATTITUDE TOWARD THE COURSE, COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT, AND COURSE GRADE OF ATL 101A AND 101B STUDENTS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE ENGLISH PROGRAM AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DURING THE FALL TERMS, 1972 AND 1974. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1976 Education, higher Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106 POSSIBLE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ATTITUDE TOWARD THE COURSE, COLLEGE ADJUSTMENT, AND COURSE GRADE OF ATL 101A AND 101B STUDENTS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE ENGLISH PROGRAM AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DURING THE FALL TERMS, 1972 AND 1974 By Jane Scott Featherstone A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of people have aided in the completion of this project. Special thanks go to Dr. Vandel C. Johnson who so ably directed this study, to Dr. James Pickering for his extremely valuable suggestions, to Dr. Louise Sause for her constructive encouragement, and to Dr. Ira Polley for his thought provoking questions. The author is grateful to Gali Edon who made statistics believable, to Comprehensive English teachers and stu­ dents who willingly administered and completed the surveys, to many friends and colleagues whose encourage­ ment was much appreciated and, above all, to my husband, Dick, whose patience, helpfulness, and support made completion of the task possible. TABLE OF CONTENTS C h apter I. Page INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 Purposes of the S t u d y ................... Definition of Terms ....................... Hypotheses ................................. Limitations of the Study ................ Plan of Presentation....................... 5 6 8 8 9 I I . RELATED LITERATURE THE DEVELOPMENTAL Y E A R S : 1964-1975 III. RESEARCH PLANS FOR STUDYING COMPREHENSIVE ENGLISH STUDENTS .......................... Population of Study I n s t r u m e n t ................................. Statistical Treatment of the Data . . . Methodology in the Analysis of Data. . . IV. V. ANALYSIS OF COLLECTED D A T A ............... 10 55 63 63 68 69 72 Conclusions................................. 92 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 96 S u m m a r y .................................... Conclusions................................. Implications .................... ............................. Recommendations 96 100 102 107 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS B. ALL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS.................... SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ ............................. iii 113 124 134 L IST OF TABLES Table Page 1. COMPARISON OF FIRST-SEMESTER MEAN GPAs FOR 1971-1972 HIGH-RISK STUDENTS AT THREE C O L L E G E S ...................................... 2 2 2. MEAN GRADES OF COMPREHENSIVE ENGLISH STUDENTS ENTERING M.S.U. IN FALL, 1972, 1973, 1974, IN SUBSEQUENT AMERICAN THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE C O U R S E S ...................................... 2 6 3. FALL QUARTER, 1972 58 4. FALL QUARTER, 1974 59 5. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL IN DESIGNATED CATEGORIES. . 61 6. COMPARISON OF 1972-1974: . 70 7. 1974: SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS . . 75 8. 1972: SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS . . 77 9. COMBINED 1972-19 74: SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS ................................. 79 19 74: REGRESSION TABLE OF SIGNIFICANT RELATION­ SHIPS BETWEEN CRITERION VARIABLE AND PRE............................. DICTOR VARIABLES 81 10. ILLUSTRATIVE TABLE. 11. 1972: REGRESSION TABLE OF SIGNIFICANT RELATION­ SHIPS BETWEEN CRITERION VARIABLE AND PRE­ DICTOR V A R I A B L E S ............................ 82 12. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE: ATTITUDE TOWARD THE C O U R S E .................................. 84 13. TABLE OF MEANS: 14. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE: ATTITUDE TOWARD THE COURSE . iv EXPECTED GRADE . . 85 . 86 Table Page EXPECTED GRADE ............. 15. TABLE OF MEANS: 16. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE: COURSE EXPERIENCE . 17. 18. 19. 87 ASSESSMENT OF 89 TABLE OF MEANS: ASSESSMENT OF COURSE EXPER­ IENCE........................................ 90 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE: ACADEMIC SELFCONCEPT .................................... 91 TABLE OF MEANS: 92 ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT. V . LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 2. 3. Page Interaction: Years x Pre versus Post; the smaller the number, the higher the expected grade ............................. 88 Interaction: Year x Pre versus Post; the smaller the number, the higher the a s s e s s m e n t ................................ 90 Interaction: Year x Pre versus Post; the smaller the number, the higher the selfconcept .................................... 93 CHAPTER'I INTRODUCTION Since higher education includes a variety of stu­ dents and programs reflecting both their needs and their institution's philosophy, issues in education probably represent these same factors. current issues are the marginal composition and reading preparation of some col­ lege freshmen and the programs designed to aid them in developing lacking skills. Such a program is the Compre­ hensive English Sequence in the Department of American Thought and Language at Michigan State University. The Comprehensive English series is developmental by this definition: a sequence of courses constituting entry into the educational system at various levels but requiring completion of specific courses to fulfill uni­ versity requirements. Students who test into the sequence through orientation testing or choose to take Comprehensive English courses begin with the developmental sequence and move into the regular series of courses when eligible. Movement from developmental to regular sequence is deter­ mined by course grade; more able students complete the requirements in nine hours while others require twelve. 1 2 Since completion of the Comprehensive English requirements means additional course time to m a n y , Com­ prehensive English teachers have been concerned about initial attitudes toward the course and their effects upon motivation and initial course achievement. Indeed, this apprehension has been voiced in many informal dis­ cussions among instructors, and the relationships between attitudes and motivation have been investigated in work­ shops and teachers' meetings for the past ten years. Because this writer shares those concerns, students' attitudes toward the initial Comprehensive English courses, ATL 101A and 101B, and their possible effects upon success in those courses seem worthy of investigation. But since most 101A and 101B students are firstterm freshmen and may be facing both the adjustment problems of most freshmen and additional resistance to being required to complete a developmental course, their adjustment to their new college life may affect how well they perform in the course. Since Comprehensive English students often write in their journals and essays about their initial adjustment problems, it would appear that a lack of reasonable degree of college adjustment probably negatively affects both attitude and achievement and that both negative attitudes toward and inaccurate perceptions of courses may limit success in developmental English classes. Because course success is undoubtedly a primary 3 objective for both teachers and students, investigations of possible relationships between all these factors seem appropriate. But investigation of such relationships must be accompanied by some understanding of what ATL 101A and B courses are like, and the best source of such information is a statement of course objectives. All teachers dis­ tribute such a statement, sometimes using the following example and at other times formulating their own. ATL 101A I. Writing improvement A. Clear statement of thesis B. Specific development of thesis C. Well-constructed, interesting paragraphs 1. Good topic sentences 2. Specific development 3. Variety in paragraph development 4. Understanding of rhetorical principles 5. Logical support D. Conclusion that is logical result of thesis development II. Improved reading comprehension A. Recognition of main idea B. Identification of major details C. Inference from major details D. Personal conclusions based on inference E. Improved comprehension score III. Vocabulary development A. Recognition of vocabulary deficiencies B. Regular additions to vocabulary C. Improved vocabulary score IV. Mastery of grammar and mechanics A. Recognition of complete sentences and of sentence parts B. Good coordination and subordination C. Correct punctuation and capitalization D. Correct spelling E. Good diction F. Logical production G. Spelling competency 4 V. Generation of ideas A. Class discussion of a variety of literary forms B. Panel discussions, small group sessions, and individual presentations C. Use of media and other teaching aids D. Use of enrichment materials in lab VI. Guided utilization of the Learning Resources Center for the following: A. Reading instruction B. Study skills development C. Composition modules ATL 10IB I. Reading skills development A. Improved reading comprehension 1. Recognition of main idea 2. Identification of major details 3. Inference from major details 4. Personal conclusions based on inference 5. Raised comprehension score B . Rate improvement II. Vocabulary development A. Recognition of vocabulary deficiencies B. Regular additions to vocabulary C. Improved vocabulary score III. Guided utilization of the Learning Resources Center for the following: A. Reading instruction B. Study skills development C . Composition modules IV. Writing improvement A. Clear statement of thesis B. Specific development of thesis C. Well-constructed, interesting paragraphs 1. Good topic sentences 2. Specific development 3. Variety in paragraph development 4. Understanding of rhetorical principles D. Conclusion that is logical result of thesis development V. Mastery of grammar and mechanics A. Recognition of complete sentences and sen­ tence parts B . Good coordination C. Correct spelling D. Correct punctuation E. Good diction F. Spelling competency G. Logical predication 5 VI. Generation of ideas A. Class discussion of a variety of literary forms B. Panel discussions, small group sessions, and individual presentations C. Use of media and other teaching aids D. Use of enrichment materials in lab1 Purposes of the Study The problem presented in this study is reasonably complicated. Comprehensive English is an extensive pro­ gram designed to meet the needs of seven to eight hundred Michigan State University freshmen under complex learning conditions. Analysis of the factors affecting Comprehen­ sive English students, then, requires a multi-faceted study. More specifically, the purposes of this study are the following: (1) To identify and study a typical group of develop­ mental English students— a representative group of ATL 101A and 10IB students in the Comprehensive English Program at Michigan State University, Fall, 1972 and Fall, 1974; (2) To determine their various attitudes toward their 101 courses; (3) To discover their perceptions of their adjustment to college life; Jane Featherstone, "Course Objectives, Comprehen­ sive English" (East Lansing: Michigan State University, Fall, 1974), p. 1. (Mimeographed), pp. 1-2. 6 (4) To determine the course grade for each student; (5) To trace possible relationships between attitude toward the courses, college adjustment, and course achievement; (6) To compare the relationships between these three factors in 1972 with the same relationships in 1974, using ATL 101A and 101B students in both instances; (7) Using the results of the study, to reassess teaching emphases and procedures that result from assumed relationships between the three factors; (8) To pinpoint the direction of additional research that appears to be the logical result of the study. Definition of Terms Given the identification of purposes of the study, the definition of the terms used is the next logical step. Definition is needed in order that the reader may better understand the wording used in stating hypotheses and that other researchers may easily replicate the study if they so desire. Developmental English Students.— American Thought and Language students whose orientation test scores indi­ cate they need developmental English; or American Thought 7 and Language students who, for a variety of reasons, have chosen on their own to take one of the developmental courses. Developmental Sequence of American Thought and Language.— ATL 101A, 10IB, 102, 103: Comprehensive English. Developmental English Courses.— credit courses designed to develop insufficient reading, writing and grammar skills within the context of the American Thought and Language curriculum satisfying General Education communication requirements. Remedial English Courses.— noncredit courses designed to develop needed communications skills before a student may be admitted to a regular English program. Most of these are departmental courses. Improvement Services.— no-credit remedial units required for, or made available to, beginning students before they are admitted to regular departmental courses. These courses are usually administered by aseparate Department of Improvement Services. Educationally Disadvantaged Youth.— marginally prepared, sometimes culturally different students, who evidence potential but are poorly prepared to survive academically. 8 Hypotheses Considering the inferences already stated and a review of pertinent literature, the following hypotheses seem logical: Hypothesis I : There is a relationship between attitude: toward the course and course grade, Hypothesis I I : There is a relationship between college adjustment and attitude toward the course. Hypothesis III: The re i s a relationship between college adjustment and course grade. Hypothesis IV: There is a relationship between attitude toward the course, college adjustment, and course grade. Limitations of the Study This study is obviously both limited and useful. It is limited because it tests correlations between factors in one population only and is a comparative study rather than an experimental one. Conclusions from this analysis might be extremely valuable, however, in designing possible experimental studies using different populations. In addition, the ideal result from research concerning a program for students is the strengthening of that program; 9 therefore, the limitation to Comprehensive English stu­ dents is useful when it facilitates meeting the needs of those students. Plan of Presentation Chapter I has included a description of the development of the Comprehensive English Program, analysis of the problem, identification of purposes, definition of terms, and limitations of the study. Chapter II, a review of related literature, investigates other studies of the three correlational factors. Chapter III includes the academic information necessary for a study of Comprehensive English students and a research design for the collection and analysis of data. Chapter IV presents the analysis of data compiled for the study. Chapter V includes summary, conclusions, and resulting recommendations. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE THE DEVELOPMENTAL YEARS: 1964-1975 In reviewing the literature concerning the "devel­ opmental years" between 1964 and 1975, the reader soon discerns a dramatic transformation of the prevailing philosophy of higher education, reflecting an abrupt change in student body composition. New student needs required nontraditional programs, a development succinctly depicted by Henderson in the following analogy: It is obvious that what is needed is an educational program specifically structured to fit the differ­ ential educational needs of the low-income high-risk, student. That is to say, an educational program that can capitalize on that different experience for edu­ cational purposes and above all one that does not attempt to force all youngsters into the same edu­ cational mold. If my notion of differences is reasonably accurate, it follows that the notion of "appropriateness of fit" is as valid in the edu­ cational world as it is in the physical world. Let me make this point differently: if we were speaking of an industrial process that culminated in a market­ able product, we could speak of raw material, a transformation process, and the marketable product. The transformation process is what transforms the raw material into the finished product and is designed in terms of the specific attributes of the raw material and the specification of the finished product. Now if we transfer this analogy to edu­ cation, the students become the raw material, the 10 11 college curriculum becomes the transformation pro­ cess, and a degree-bearing graduate becomes the finished product. Let's assume that the students under consideration are low-risk middle-class youngsters and the transformation process is the conventional university program and is adequate to turning out a degree-bearing graduate. It follows that the process is specifically appropriate to transforming this particular raw material i.e. , middle-class students into a degree-bearing graduate. The introduction of raw material with different attributes (lower-class, high-risk students) is incompatible with the transformation process and it is very likely that those students will be rejected i.e., flunked out, by this transformation process. That is to say, that this process is not capable of transforming this type student into the finished product. It is not only logically sound but also pedagogically sound that a transformation process tailored specifically to the attributes of the dif­ ferent population is necessary in order to effect the proper transformation into degree-bearing graduates.2 Although an extensive search for studies of remedial or developmental English programs produced none investigating possible relationships between the three factors in this study, a number of researchers have described remedial programs throughout the country. Alfred Zucker, in his study of the factors contributing to and interfering with successful achievement of remedial English course objectives in Los Angeles Junior colleges, perhaps produced the most comprehensive work, for he identified student and teacher behaviors that interfered 2 Donald Henderson, "Some Necessary Changes in Uni­ versity Practices for Education of the Disadvantaged," Higher Education for the Disadvantaged (East St. Louis: Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, June, 1968), p. 57. 12 with achievement. 3 However, the only common factor in the two studies is achievement, for Zucker included only behaviors, not student attitudes toward the course or adjustment to college life. His analysis did recognize, however, that certain identified incidents actually inter­ fered with stated objectives for remedial English 21, thus recognizing that factors other than course content may affect achievement, a basic assumption of this study. Investigation of studies of other programs desig­ nated as remedial or developmental produced a general picture of developmental English education in community colleges and four-year colleges and universities, for most studies investigated specific characteristics of the programs or the effects of specific attitudes toward them. In a recent survey of developmental English pro­ grams done by the English Task Force at Henry Ford Com­ munity College, a number of factors were included that appear to be of general concern: the required or non­ required status of remedial or developmental courses, the class hours per week, the basis for placement, the type of credit awarded or withheld, and the grading sys­ tem. Of the twenty-four community colleges and universi­ ties surveyed, twenty-three had remedial or developmental 3 Alfred Zucker, "An Investigation of Factors Con­ tributing to and Interfering with the Successful Achieve­ ment of Remedial English Objectives in Los Angeles City Junior Colleges" (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cali­ fornia, Los Angeles, 1966), pp. 113-37. 13 courses; ten of the twenty-three courses were required; thirteen designated examination, including ACT, as the basis for placement; three required a writing sample, two in addition to testing and one as the sole placement factor; six indicated instructor and/or counselor referral as the placement procedure; two listed student choice; and one indicated race and nationality as the basis for placement. 4 All these categories appear to be valid factors in comparing and contrasting programs in a variety of higher educational institutions. But the majority of existing remedial or develop­ mental courses and programs are probably found in two-year colleges, for they have traditionally operated primarily as "open-door" institutions. Dare's reasonably recent study of remedial programs in public two-year colleges surveyed all public community and junior colleges listed in the 196 8, American Association of Junior Colleges Directory. Questionnaire data produced the following conclusions: 1. 2. Nearly all public two-year colleges in the United States, regardless of their enrollment size and breadth of program, operated under the "open-door" system. Whether "open-door colleges or not, nearly all the public two-year colleges provided some kind of remedial instruction. English I Task Force, "Credit/Grade Survey of Michigan Colleges" (Dearborn: Henry Ford Community Col­ lege, September, 1974), pp. 1-2. (Mimeographed.) 14 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Most colleges refrained from using the term "remedial" and instead placed their emphasis on "developmental," "guided study" or some similar term. Most colleges had remedial offerings based upon small class size and individual courses in English, reading and math. There were some col­ leges which went beyond these to provide pre­ college courses in a wide variety of subject areas. As a further part of the remedial efforts of the colleges a well-rounded counseling program was usually included. Most colleges conceived that the purposes for their remedial programs w e r e : salvage, second chance and redirection. Most colleges made preparatory studies before establishing remedial programs. Once programs have been established, few colleges reported having made studies of their programs. Those which had made studies often appeared to be unable or unwilling to produce statistical data. The data reported were inadequate for accurate judgment of the amount of remediation being achieved in public two-year colleges either by enrollment size or nation-wide. Most colleges cited a lack of staff as their chief problem in attempting to research their remedial programs. Just over fifty percent of the colleges had some remedial faculty members with preparation in remedial education on the graduate level. Most colleges used their remedial faculty to teach both regular credit and remedial courses. The attitude of faculty and students toward remedial programs was favorable in most colleges. While many colleges reported some degree of success in their remedial programs, they were apparently not satisfied with the results. Most colleges indicated plans to alter their programs. The factors considered most important in achiev­ ing success in remedial programs were the instructor's attitude, method of instruction, competent counseling and materials used. Most colleges were concerned about remedial needs and were ready to share their experiences.5 5 LeRoy Joseph Dare, "A Study of Remedial Programs in Public Two-Year Colleges," Dissertation Abstracts, 30, No. 9 (1970) , 3896A (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). 15 The results of Dare's study seem to indicate that the existence of "open-door" philosophies in institutions of higher learning necessitated planning and implementing special programs for disadvantaged youth, largely the educationally disadvantaged students defined in Chapter I. Although it is not the purpose of this study to investigate or assess programs for disadvantaged students, it must address itself to the needs of disadvantaged col­ lege students as they are reflected in remedial or developmental courses designed for them. Certainly educators should place the "salvage" process in the context of the English problems of disadvantaged youth described eloquently by Richard Corbin, 1964 President of the National Council of the Teachers of English. In a most realistic sense, we cannot save the fifty million economically and culturally disadvantaged human beings who are drowning in the sea of our national affluence until we have taught them, beginning in their earliest childhood to speak, to read, and in some measure, to write the words and forms of English that are acceptable to our society. We cannot effectively impart these skills until, through the help of literature, we have struck some spark of self-illumination, a flash of that inner necessary light which informs the human spirit as to what it is and what it can become, and without which we are but vegetables.6 Because of the great variety of college students designated as educationally disadvantaged, it is not g Richard Corbin, Literacy, Literature, and the Disadvantaged (Champaign, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English, November, 1964), pp. 2-3. 16 surprising that a number of studies of programs for edu­ cationally disadvantaged youth express the need for developmental programs to increase the chances for academic success. For instance, Faubion, in his study of disadvantaged veterans enrolled in junior colleges, emphasized the need "to involve subjects in the specially designed developmental education program for veterans." Fair, in his study of special programs for disadvantaged students in higher education, recommended "early edu­ cational intervention into the environment of the dis­ advantaged student by providing developmental college preparatory programs." And Clark emphasized after a study of higher education program for American Indians, that "the educational achievement of Indian college stu­ dents was seriously impeded because of their deficient preparation in such areas as language abilities, study skills, and general academic proficiency." 7 In spite of the need, faculty do not always have a positive attitude toward remedial or developmental n These sources concerning need for developmental courses are included in Dissertation Abstracts: John Hall Faubion, "Personality Change Among Educationally Dis­ advantaged Veterans as a Function in Enrollment in a Junior College Developmental Project," 33, No. 4 (1973) 1698A (University of Oklahoma); Martha Harris Fair, "Special Programs for Disadvantaged Students in Higher Education," 34, No. 5 (1973) 2327A (Northern Illinois University); Richard Owen Clark, "Higher Education Pro­ grams for American Indians at Selected Southwestern Col­ leges and Universities," 32, No. 10 (1972), 5562A (Uni­ versity of Southern California). 17 education since philosophy of education varies rather dramatically concerning remedial instruction and changes tend to be cyclical. Emphasis varies from strict insti­ tutional requirements to what Weingarten critically called Q "placing the onus on the student." Indeed, it appears that there is a recurring dichotomy between what Rosen described as a definite need for further research in 9 teaching methods in order to better meet the needs of students and what Martin identified as a lack of commit­ ment to remedial instruction as a valid college function.^ Perhaps faculty distrust is caused by two weak­ nesses identified in two recent studies, one of indi­ vidualized instruction and another of a program designed to facilitate student adjustment. Brown, in her assess­ ment of individualized instruction such as writing labora­ tories and tutoring programs, stressed the fact that little evaluation of methods was done. This deficiency was also recognized by Roueche and Kirk: g Charles Weingartner, "English for What?" in English and the Disadvantaged, ed. Edward Fagan (Scranton, Penn.: International Textbook Company, 1967), p. 18. 9 Marilyn Rosen, "A Structured Classroom Writing Method: An Experiment in Teaching Rhetoric to Remedial English College Students," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 12 (1973) , 7524A (New York University). ^ F r e d r i c k Houston Martin, "The High Risk Student and Developmental Education at Tennessee Community Col­ lege," Dissertation Abstracts, 32, No. 11 (1972), 6129A (The University of Tennessee). 18 Seldom do current research studies contain hard data pertaining to the persistence, academic achievement, or attitude development of students in remedial programs. Perhaps this omission is due to reluctance, lack of expertise, or simply an insouciant attitude on the part of junior college administrators toward keeping statistical r e c o r d s . H Since the best impetus toward program improvement comes from program evaluation, an activity rarely per­ formed, Brown's findings are probably typical rather than atypical. Perhaps just as typical is the situation described by Davis, who declared that the university's funding limitations and inadequate reward system limited the growth of a developmental program. 12 Traditionally universities have been free with verbal commitments to developmental education but niggardly in providing ade­ quate salaries and staff benefits for developmental faculty (usually temporary), sufficient funds for development and evaluation of such programs, and equal recognition of developmental courses. Perhaps failure to adequately support developmental programs may result from the common belief that they do not really make much This description of program weaknesses is indebted to Judy Earlene Cate Brown, "A Study of NonClassroom Individualized Instruction in Composition in Tennessee Colleges and Universities," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 12 (1973) , 6993A (The University of Tennessee); John E. Roueche and R. Wade Kirk, Catching U p : Remedial Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1974), pp. 6-7. 12 Allen Jeffrey Davis, "An Analysis of the Changes in the Freshman Year Experience at the University of Massa­ chusetts, Amherst, 1968-1973," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 11 (1973), 6408A (University of Massachusetts). 19 difference. As Moore stated, the "odds are that the high-risk student [enrolled in remedial courses] will not be any better off academically after his college experience than he was before he had the experience." 13 And some research supports this assumption. Losak, for instance, in his evaluation of a junior col­ lege remedial reading program, discovered that the program had little effect upon the students' academic progress. Kendrick and Thomas also reported that "evidence points to the conclusion that existing compensatory programs and practices have made little impact in eradicating the problems of disadvantaged college students, nor have the majority of colleges accepted this area as their role." Even though Parker proved that programs for high risk students at North Carolina colleges produced slightly higher academic averages, there was no concrete evidence to prove that compensatory programs provided "the oppor­ tunity for high-risk students to succeed in college or 14 thereafter." 13 W. Moore, Jr., Against the Odds Jossey-Bass, 1970), p. 3. (San Francisco: ■^Evidence for ineffectiveness of programs is indebted to John G. Losak, "An Evaluation of Selected Aspects of a Junior College Remedial Reading-Writing Pro­ gram," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, p. 47; S. A. Kendrick and C. L. Thomas, "Transition from School to College," Review of Educational Research, 1970, 40, p. 171; William tarter Parker, J r . , "An Evaluation of Compensatory Programs for High-Risk Students," Dissertation Abstracts, 32, No. 1 (1971), 302A (Indiana University). 20 A perceptive review of the literature concerning developmental or remedial courses produces few studies dealing with two major issues: the effect of requiring entering students to enroll in developmental programs and the possible influence of developmental programs on the college success of high-risk students. Although the English Task Force survey indicated that ten of the 15 twenty-three courses listed are required, it was not a research study dealing with the effects of the require­ ment. Livingston's study of students enrolled in the developmental program at Florissant Valley Community College did discover, however, that below average students assigned to the program earned higher grade point averages than similar students permitted to choose their own courses and that developmental students had a more positive atti­ tude toward various college facilities and services than 16 students not in the program. Whether required or not, however, several writers indicated a number of programs were reasonably effective. In reporting on the Martin Luther King Developmental program at Western Michigan University, Snowden included 15 English Task Force, pp. 1-2. 16 Frank Bryan Livingston, "Some Effects of Requiring Entering Students to Enroll in Developmental (Remedial) Programs at Florissant Valley Community Col­ lege, Fall Semester, 1970," Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 9 (1971), 4 376A (St. Louis University). 21 data to prove that the program is successful in preparing high-risk high school graduates to perform successfully. 1. 2. 3. 4. The college grade point average of the Develop­ mental Group was significantly higher than the grades of two control groups. The developmental students achieved higher grades than were predicted by the ACT program. The Developmental Group not only met the 2.00 minimum requirement for good standing but sig­ nificantly exceeded the 2.00 with an earned grade point average of 2.56. The Developmental Group was able to maintain a level of academic persistence equal to that of the regularly admitted students in Control Groups II and III. In addition, while 19 per cent of all freshmen dropped out of school during their first year, only 16 per cent of the students in the Developmental Group dropped out.I? Data collected by Roueche and Kirk also indicated that students participating in the remedial programs evaluated in the study earned higher first semester grades than those not participating. These results appear to prove the effectiveness of the programs (see page 22). Actually, if various studies are indicative of typical results, the crux of the whole matter is more likely to be persistence than any other factor. In fact, in Simpson's study of a developmental skills prog r a m at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, he reported that a significant difference was found in favor of the experimental group in only one test: 17 the experimental Raymond Snowden, "A Critical Analysis and Appraisal of the Martin Luther King Developmental Program for Marginal Students at Western Michigan University," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 5 (1972), 2137A (Michigan State University). TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF FIRST-SEMESTER MEAN GPAs FOR 1971-1972 HIGH-RISK STUDENTS AT THREE COLLEGES College Race-Ethnic Group 1st Semester Mean GPA N Remedial Program Non-remedial Program F-ratio Probability South Campus (total program) Black White 64 15 44 2.54 2.28 2.58 2.13 1,90 2,07 5.650 1.204 5.697 .2927 .0204^ El Centro (total program) Black White 44 26 15 2.43 2.92 1.98 1.87 1.99 1.18 3.628 9.127 1.140 ,0060a .3057 Southeastern (total program) Black White Indian 64 26 16 11 2.91 3.15 2.71 2.55 1.83 2,04 1.59 1.94 27.446 8.056 9.085 4.897 .0089a .0062a .0523 172 67 84 2.66 2.94 2.49 1.96 1.98 1.84 31.065 25.274 10.565 .0000a .0021a Combined Black White Significant at .01 level. Significant at .05 level. NOTE: A probability level (1) of ,05 or less was considered an adequate level of significance for chi square and for the F-ratio when one-way analysis of variance was applied to the problem of determining the significance of the difference between mean scores for the groups. SOURCE: Roueche and Kirk, p. 55. 23 group had a statistically significant greater level of persistence in college than did the control group. 18 Schultz reported similar results from a study of com­ pensatory education at Wayne State University. According to his findings, 28 of the original 75 regular students failed to finish the first academic year (an attrition of 37.3%) while only 27 of the 135 special students failed 19 to finish the first academic year (an attrition of 20%). Perhaps the only relationships reasonably sup­ portable are those between successful completion of sub­ sequent regular and developmental courses that are similar in composition. Typical of these are the reading-writing developmental courses and reading-writing regular courses taught in American Thought and Language at Michigan State University, as described in the University College Hand­ book. Here an explanation of the system is necessary for an understanding of follow-up studies. In order to satisfy the University General Edu­ cation requirement, a student must take one course in each of the following groups. Additional courses may b e t a k e n for elective credit. I. 101A, 10I B , 121, 131, 141, 151, 161, 165, 171, 181, 191H II. 103, 122, 132, 142, 152, 162, 166, 172, 182, 192H 18 Franklin Jon Simpson, "Selected Aspects of the Developmental Skills Program at Southern Illinois Uni­ versity, Carbondale, 1969-1974," Dissertation Abstracts, 36 (1974), 745A (Southern Illinois University). 19 Philip M. Schultz, "Compensatory Education at Wayne State University," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 8 (19 73), 3926A (Wayne State University). 24 III. 123, 133, 142, 152, 163, 167, 173, 183, 193H ATL 101-102-103, Comprehensive English, gen'l. ed. , 3 credits each term, is a sequence of courses for students needing help in developing the communication arts of reading and writing. Students whose test scores are below a certain level enroll in ATL 101A or ATL 101B. Both cover all aspects of written English, but 101B stresses reading instruction and includes required reading laboratory. (See Learning Resources Center for Comprehensive English related activities.) Sequences of terms for students enrolled in ATL 101A, 10I B , 102, 103 for the completion of University general education requirements: 101A or 101B A student enrolled in 101A or 101B who receives a grade of 3.0, 3.5, or 4.0 must enroll for ATL 122, 132, 142, 152, 162, 165, 172, or 182. b. A student enrolled for 101A or 10IB who receives a grade of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, or 2.5 must enroll in ATL 102 for the second term of his general education requirement. 102 a. b. A student enrolled in 102 who receives a grade of 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, or 4.0 must enroll for ATL 122, 132, 142, 152, 162, 166, 172, or 182. A student enrolled for 102 who receives a grade of 1.0, 1.5, or 2.0 must enroll for ATL 103 for the third term of his general education requirement. 103 A student enrolled in ATL 103 who earns a grade of 1.0 to 4.0 must enroll for ATL 123, 133, 142, 153, 163, 167, 173, or 183 to complete the general education require­ ment. Students who enroll for ATL 102 or 103 must complete 4 terms of ATL to satisfy the Uni­ versity general education requirements. Examples of Patterns for Satisfying General Education Requirements ll ATL XOlA (or l01B), 122, 123 2. ATL 101A (or 101B), 102, 122, 123 3. ATL 101A (or 101B), 102, 103, 12320 20 1975-1976 p. 2. University College, Goals, Courses and Services, (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 19 74) , 25 Given the system just described, a number of follow-up studies have been done in the past to determine the success of ATL 101A and 101B students in subsequent American Thought and Language courses. These studies did not attempt to make inferences concerning the results but merely suggested course paths ATL 101 students were likely to take through the ATL sequence, and the relative levels of success they appeared to achieve. Although they are obviously limited by the uniformity or lack of uniformity in the grading of regular sequence courses, they serve as useful background for the study of factors that affect success within the courses. The three most recent studies are depicted in Table 2. Actually the literature concerning remedial or developmental programs suggests great variation in phil­ osophy ranging from the development of courses within and outside of departments to Lovejoyls recommendation that the "Counseling Center should develop, coordinate, and implement special programs for the academically disad­ vantaged student," these programs to include individual consultation and remediation, as opposed to formal courses. 21 It is disappointing that so few attacked 21 Delmar Franklin Lovejoy, "Assessment of a Remedial English Program for Academically Disadvantaged Young Adults at Western Christian College," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 10 (1973), 5663A (Michigan State University). TABLE 2 MEAN GRADES OF COMPREHENSIVE ENGLISH STUDENTS ENTERING M,S.U. IN FALL, 1972, 1973, 1974, IN SUBSEQUENT AMERICAN THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE COURSES ATL 101-B Fall, 1972 N 354 X 2.77 Winter, 1973 CS 102 122 132 142 152 N X 142 166 2 3 14 2.53 2.54 1.75 3,00 3,39 ATL 101-A Spring, 1973 CS N X 103 122 123 101 163 153 19 32 9 1 1 5 68 3,13 2.75 2,44 3.00 3,00 3.40 Fall, 1972 N 383 X 2.94 Winter, 1973 CS 102 X N 120 2.58 Spring, 1973 CS N 103 123 122 121 153 102 183 133 173 16 10 22 2 2 2 1 1 1 57 3.19 2.60 2.65 3.00 3.50 2.25 2.50 3.00 2.50 X 123 173 133 183 102 163 153 59 3 3 1 1 3 2 72 2,71 2.66 3.00 3.00 2.50 3.00 3,50 122 219 2.65 123 173 122 163 183 84 6 2 1 3 96 2.71 2.66 2.75 2.50 3.00 153 173 1 1 3,50 2.00 142 10 3.05 143 163 1 2 2,00 3,50 133 163 123 1 2 1 2.00 3.50 3,00 152 6 3.41 121 183 1 1 3.50 3.00 153 123 193 5 3.50 2 1,75 _1_ 0,00 8 to Cl TABLE 2— Continued ATL 101-B Fall, 1972 N X Winter, 1973 CS N X 2.80 331 (341) X Spring, 1973 CS N X 162 7 3.21 123 163 1 1 2.00 3,50 172 4 2.63 123 173 3 1 3,00 4,00 123 183 2 1 162 2.75 2.50 182 Fall, 1973 N ATL 101-A 6 347 2.83 Winter, 1974 X CS N 121 122 3 97 132 7 2.33 2.53 2,21 Spring, 1974 X CS N 122 122 12 3 133 143 153 163 173 183 193H 102 3 2.17 2 1.25 55 2.92 3 3.17 5 2.40 8 3.13 3 3.50 8 2.62 2 3.25 1 3,50 1 2.50 123 133 143 183 1 1 1 2 1.50 3.00 2.00 3.75 Fall, 1972 N X Winter, 1973 CS N 162 10 3.15 133 143 123 1 1 2 2.50 2.50 2.50 172 5 2.60 173 2 2,25 4 3.38 374" 183 163 1 1 167 3.50 3.00 182 Fall, 1973 N X 370 2.89 (378) X Spring, 1973 Winter, 1974 CS N X CS N X Spring, 1974 CS X N 101A 3 0.83 102 1 2.00 121 5 2.50 122 123 173 183 1 1 1 1 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 122 119 2.66 123 133 143 153 163 173 183 102 71 1 6 5 4 11 7 1 2.75 3.00 2.75 2.90 2.50 2.59 3.29 1.50 TABLE 2— Continued ATL 101-B Fall/ 1973 N X Winter, 1974 Spring, 1974 CS N 142 12 2.53 123 143 173 183 4 5 2 1 3.13 3.20 3.00 3,50 152 21 2.50 123 143 153 163 173 183 3 3 7 3 1 1 2.33 2.00 2,71 3.17 3.00 4,00 163 183 4 1 2.50 3,00 162 X ATL 101-A 6 2.67 CS N X 172 10 2.30 123 143 173 4 1 5 2,25 3,00 2,90 182 4 3,25 123 143 163 1 1 1 2,00 0,00 3,50 123 1 0,50 Fall, 1973 N X Winter, 1974 C S N X Spring, 1974 C S N X 132 8 2.31 123 133 153 163 183 1 3 1 1 2 3.00 2.83 3.00 2.50 3.00 142 16 2,53 123 133 143 153 163 173 183 1 1 3 3 ■ 2 1 2 2.00 3.00 2.50 2.83 2.25 2.50 3.00 152 6 2.57 123 153 163 173 1 3 1 1 2,50 3.50 3.00 3.00 162 12 2.84 143 163 173 1 8 1 2.50 3.19 2.50 172 18 2.64 123 143 173 183 3 1 12 2 2.50 2.50 3.04 3.25 TABLE 2— Continued ATL 101-A ATL 101-B Fall, 1973 N X Winter, 1974 Spring, 1974 CS N 122 123 143 153 163 173 103 24 30 1 4 1 4 32 2,27 2.27 3,00 2,62 2,50 2.50 3,05 Incomplete 5 133 153 173 183 1 1 1 1 0,00 2,50 2,50 2,50 Did not take 2 8 121 122 123 153 163 173 183 102 103 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2.50 2.67 3,00 4,00 2.50 2.75 3,00 1.50 1.50 102 1 3,00 CS 102 N 128 Did not attend X 2.70 X Fall, 1973 N X Winter, 1974 CS X N Spring, 1974 CS N X 182 7 2.61 143 173 183 1 2 4 2,00 2.50 3.25 123 2 3.25 122 2 3.25 102 135 2,89 122 30 20 123 2 133 143 2 153 8 163 ' 3 173 7 183 1 102 1 103 33 2.68 2.65 2.25 2.50 2.94 2.83 2.50 3.50 0.00 3.06 103 122 123 143 173 183 102 103 3.50 1.90 2.75 0.00 3.00 2,50 2.87 2.00 Incomplete 1 Did not 34 take 19 Did not 12 attend 1 5 2 1 2 1 4 1 TABLE 2— Continued ATL 101-A ATL 101-B Fall, 1974 N 356 X 2.76 Winter, 1975 N 122 88 132 7 142 152 9 19 X CS N 2.69 121 123 143 153 163 173 183 1 58 3 2 1 11 3 3.00 2.85 2.17 2,50 2,00 2,41 2,67 2,71 123 133 1 6 123 143 153 163 123 143 153 163 173 183 X CS Spring, 1975 1.77 2,70 Fall, 1974 N X Winter, 1975 CS 13 2.50 123 153 163 173 183 CS N X 122 124 2,57 123 133 143 153 163 173 183 103 72 4 2 6 4 16 5 1 2.81 2.37 2.50 2.17 2,50 2,87 3.10 3.00 3.00 2,67 132 8 2,50 3 3 1 1 2.33 2,67 1,00 2.00 123 1 133 173 • 1 183 1 2.00 3.17 2.50 2.50 142 15 2.38 4 1 9 1 1 1 2,75 2,50 2,33 1.00 3,00 3,50 123 133 143 153 163 173 183 2.75 2,00 3.75 2,50 3.00 2.90 3.50 390 2,87 152 162 X N Spring, 1975 3 1 6 2 1 2,83 2.00 2,08 2.75 3,00 15 2,56 123 133 153 163 173 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.50 3,50 3.06 3.50 3.50 GJ O TABLE 2— Continued ATL 101-A ATL 101-B Fall, 1974 N X Winter, 1975 CS N 172 27 182 102 X 15 137 2.77 2.96 2.21 Spring, 1975 CS N X 121 123 133 163 173 183 1 3 2 1 15 2 1.00 2.67 3.00 4.00 2.63 3.00 123 173 183 99 98 2 1 10 1 1 3.25 2.00 2,75 121 122 123 143 153 173 183 102 103 97 98 99 1 31 19 2 7 3 1 3 56 1 10 3 1,50 1.65 2,45 2,25 2.29 2.50 3.00 1.50 2.61 102 99 2 1 2.25 Fall, 1974 N X Winter, 1975 CS 3 2.25 CS X N 162 7 2.50 163 173 3 2 2.83 2.50 172 26 2,49 123 133 143 173 1 3 2 17 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.68 182 12 2,99 123 133 153 163 183 3 1 1 1 5 3.33 3.50 4.00 3.00 3.10 102 120 2.58 103 121 122 123 133 143 153 163 173 97 42 1 31 12 3 1 3 1 8 1 2.79 1.00 1.95 2.21 2.33 1.50 2.50 1.50 2.81 1 0,00 101A 1 1.50 101A 101B X N Spring, 1975 TABLE 2— Continued ATL 101-A ATL 101-B Fall, 1974 N X Winter, 1975 CS X N 97 2 98 25 99 10 Spring, 1975 CS X N 123 103 1 1 2.50 2.50 101B 122 123 143 153 163 173 102 103 98 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1.50 1.75 0.50 2,50 2,50 2.50 3.00 1,83 1.00 99 10 Fall, 1974 N X Winter, 1975 CS N X 121 4 97 3 98 37 2,37 Spring, 1975 CS N X 122 163 173 1 2 1 98 99 2 1 121 1 122 3 123 7 153 • 1 163 1 173 3 1 183 98 17 99 3 Incomplete = 9 7 Not in course = 9 8 Not enrolled = 99^7 SOURCE: Charles G. Eberly, "Mean Grades of Comprehensive English Students Entering M.S.U. in Fall 1972, 1973, and 1974, in Subsequent American Thought and Language Courses," East Lansing: Michigan State University, Fall, 1975, pp. 1-3. (Mimeographed.) 3.00 2,75 2.00 2.50 2.33 3.14 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 33 what Arechigan identified as a major problem, survival to graduation, when he recommended, after studying a number of programs for marginal students, that colleges should be more diligent in their efforts to retain such students. 2 2 Although initial course survival constitutes the scope of the study of Comprehensive English students, it must be considered in the context of ultimate academic survival; for it is hardly worth helping a student survive his freshman year if his ultimate graduation is not also a major goal. If, as this study hypothesizes, course achievement may be related to attitude toward courses or programs, existing studies of satisfaction, or lack of it, among various student groups shed light upon the representative characteristics of the Comprehensive English group. Since Comprehensive English is a required program, studies of the implications of either requiring or not requiring the courses occupied first priority. One recent study dealt with the effects of voluntary versus forced enrollment in a study skills program and concluded that "high risk community college freshmen can be required to enroll in 22 Domingo Arechigan, "Selected Programs for Marginal Students in Border Junior College Consortium," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 10 (1973) , 5652A (Arizona State University). 34 programs such as study skills programs without concern about whether or not they want to enroll.”2 3 But general attitude toward course or program is undoubtedly more complex than initial requirement. As recently reported by Brookover and Erickson, variant attitudinal or social climate factors may directly account for differences in achievement, and several studies have supported this assumption. Atkinson and Litwin reported that attitudes toward remedial classes are negatively affected by anxiety, an assumption partially supported by other studies, although other analyses differentiated between students with high and low academic ability. Spielberger found, for instance, that . . . anxious students in the middle ranges of ability obtained lower grades and a higher per­ centage of failures than non-anxious students of comparable ability. Students of low ability earned poor grades irrespective of their anxiety level; however, a higher percentage of these students with high anxiety were academic failures than were nonanxious students of limited ability.24 23 Joseph John Federico, "The Effects of Voluntary and Forced Enrollment in a Study Skills Program on Academic Achievement and Attitudes of High Risk Community College Freshmen Men," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 4 (1972), 1457A (Lehigh University). ^ T h i s analysis of attitudinal and social climate factors affecting achievement is indebted to Wilbur B. Brookover and Edsel L. Erickson, Sociology of Education (Homewood, 111. : The Dorsey Presi*^ 1975), p"I 3 6 0 ; John Atkinson and George H. Litwin, "Achievement Motive and Test Anxiety Conceived as Motives to Approach Success and Motives to Avoid Failure," Journal of Abnormal Psychology 60 (January 1960): 62; Charles D. Spielberger, "The Effects of Manifest Anxiety on Academic Achievement of 35 But although anxiety may not be a completely stable variable in viewing achievement, several researchers have pursued attitude toward either course or college environment as a potential achievement-influencing factor. Ann Smart Williams, in an earlier study of Comprehensive English students, assessed the use of media for personal­ ized involvement in the courses and analyzed students' attitudes toward the course, proving that if students approach remedial courses with positive attitudes they are "more likely to retain and use the material presented over a longer period of time." Weingartner stated emphatically that they have no taste for what is not clearly relevant and practical. Dabbs' findings seem to indicate that remedial English writing programs improve composition skills only when students perceive that the course is specifically designed to meet their needs. Pfeifer and Sedlacek reported that black students who feel that the University identifies with, and is interested in solving, black problems get better grades than those who do not. And McGuire and Noble found academic motivation to be an extremely relevant variable for the purpose of identifying College Students," in Anxiety and Educational Achievement, eds. Eric Gandrey and Charles Spielberger (Sidney: John Wiley and Sons Australasia Pty Ltd., 1971), p. 124. 36 w h i c h l o w - a c h i e v i n g students mi g h t b e n e f i t m o s t from a p r o g r a m of a c a d e m i c encouragement. 25 Since a m a j o r c o n c e r n of all d e v e l o p m e n t a l e d u ­ cators is to foster u l t i m a t e i n d e pendence among students w h o m u s t be i n i t i a l l y d e p e n d e n t upon a support program, r e s e a r c h c o n c e r n i n g this factor seems important. Backner and B e c k e r n s t e r n s u r v e y e d o v e r a p e r i o d o f time the a t t i ­ tudes t o w ard a special college p r o g r a m for e d u c a t i o n a l l y d i s a d v a n t a g e d y o u t h and d i s c o v e r e d that students p r o ­ g r e s s i v e l y b e c a m e m o r e realistic in th e i r a p p r aisal of the p r o g r a m and e v i d e n c e d less n e e d for crutches, that they r e m a i n e d r e l a t i v e l y dependent. 26 but Perhaps H a m p t o n ' s t e c h n i q u e s a t t a c k e d the p r o b l e m of d e p e n d e n c y m o s t directly. He stated t h a t e d u c a t i o n a l l y d i s a d v a n t a g e d y o u t h m u s t be c o n v i n c e d by e d u c a t o r s that failure is n o t 25 This analysis of the relationship between atti­ tude and achievement is indebted to Ann Smart Williams, "The Syntactical Structure of Freshmen Students in a Developmental English Course Based on Selected Media and the Nature of Language" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972), p. 2; Charles Weingartner, "English for What?" in English and the Disadvantaged, ed. Edward Fagan (Pennsylvania: International Textbook C o . , 1967), p. 18; L. Dabbs, "A Report on Remedial English," Junior College Journal 27 (March 1957): 381-87; Michael Pfeifer, Jr. and William E. Sedlacek, "Predicting Black Student Grades with Nonintellective Measures," The Journal of Negro Education 43 (Winter 1974): 74. 26 B u r t o n L. B a c k n e r and Lewis B e c k e rnstein, "A S u r v e y of D i s a d v a n t a g e d S t u d e n t s ' A t t i t u d e s Tow a r d s a S p e c i a l C ollege Program," Jou r n a l of H u m a n Resources 5 (Winter 1970): 127. 37 a final condition but that self-confidence must result from the sort of successful accomplishment that comes from personal effort. 2 7 Obviously the student attitude that includes some personal responsibility for progress should produce greater independence. Although students' assessments of courses or programs may affect achievement directly or indirectly, they cannot be separated from the additional context of the college environment itself. Obviously all students choose college environments for reasons characteristic of their individual intellectual orientations or of their educational opportunity. For disadvantaged students, perhaps the first option does not exist. Since their choices may be limited to those institutions that both accept and support them economically, characteristics of institutions may not have the same effects upon them as upon other college students, but it seems logical that students' characteristics may be either reinforced or changed in the learning process. In this vein, however, Feldman and Newcomb reported that " . . . college impacts are conditioned by the background and personality of the student. 27 Peter J. Hampton, "Learning Needs of Academi­ cally Disadvantaged Students," Adolescence 9 (Winter 1974) : 557. 28 Kenneth A. Feldman and Theodore M. Newcomb, The Impact of College on Students (San Francisco: JosseyBass, Inc., 1969), p. 332. 38 In considering background, it seems logical to assume that various students may view both real and per­ ceived environment differently. A study by Gares, in which the real and idealized perception of Afro-American, Spanish-American, Indian, and Caucasian students was assessed using the College and University Environment Scales, proved that all groups, with only two exceptions, regarded an idealized environment as being significantly 29 different from the real environment. The logical inference that can be made from these findings seems to be that the disparity between ideal perceptions of col­ lege life and actual college experience can affect adjustment for all students, but particularly for minority students. But students' self-concepts as related to college adjustment may depend upon their reactions to the charac­ teristics of the real college environment, although researchers seem to disagree concerning the strength of the relationship. As Skager, Holland, and Baskamp discovered, apparently "students develop relatively lower estimates of their scholastic ability at colleges with high enrollment, a selective admission policy, large 2 9Charles Wayne Gares, "Comparison of Existing and Idealized Perceptions of Afro-American, SpanishAmerican, Indian, and Caucasian Students Attending Eastern New Mexico University," Dissertation Abstracts, 30, No. 6 (1970), 2703A (University of Northern Colorado). 39 funds per student, a more varied curriculum, a higher percentage of male students, and many students majoring in practical and technical f i e l d s . " ^ If their findings are accurate concerning large enrollment, developmental students in large universities such as Michigan State may bring a built-in, sometimes unrecognized, doubt con­ cerning their own ability to survive academically. If self-concepts are related in some way to the students' interactions to their college environments, those self-concepts may be at least partially related to students' values. For instance Eanes found that students holding values significantly different from those of the majority of his sample were found to be more negative in their responses to the college environment. Wallace discovered that during the first few months of college freshmen move from initially high to a low valuation of the importance of good grades. Sanford identified a general moral deterioration and a resulting increase in student lethargy, producing educational doldrums of the variety increasingly described by the press. His findings illustrated the fact that students rarely adjust easily to a system they do not respect. And Lindgren formulated 30 Rodney Skager, John L. Holland, and Larry A. Braskamp, "Changes in Self Ratings and Life Goals Among Students in Colleges with Different Characteristics," in College and Student, Selected Readings in the Social Psy­ chology of Higher Education, ecT Kenneth Feldman (New Y o r k : Maxwell House, 1972), p. 228. 40 a routine for achieving success in college, including necessary behaviors, thus stressing adjustment as a 31 basis for achievement. A relatively recent study by Davis determined that among graduating seniors in 135 American colleges and universities, their assessment of the intellectual environment of their school varied with the type of institution, that they perceived the value climate to be directly related to the "true" value climate, that students' perceptions of their value climates were dis­ torted toward their value positions, and that students with higher grades tended to give lower estimates of the intellectuality of their campuses than students with poorer grades. 32 Obviously students' assessments of a college's intellectuality may depend upon their abilities or the quality of their academic preparation for college. 31 This analysis of the relationship of values to interactions to college environments is indebted to Harvey Eanes III, "Students' Rated Effective Responses to their College Environment," Dissertation Abstracts, 32, No. 1 (1971), 189A (University of Texas at Austin); Walter S. Wallace, Student Culture (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1966), pp. 65-66; Kaoree Yamamoto, e d . , The College Student and His Culture: An Analysis (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968) , p. 14; Henry Clay Lindgren, The Psychology of College Success (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1969), p. 99. 32 James Davis, "Intellectual Climates in 135 American Colleges and Universities: A Study in Social Psychology," Sociology of Education 37 (Winter 1963) : 128. 41 A thorough review of the literature, however, must also include those sources investigating factors that are not necessarily value oriented but may affect college adjustment. Researchers have pursued a number of these, sometimes finding them only moderately related to per­ ceptions of the college environment, but at other times finding them directly related to this same factor. Social class, for instance, has been investigated as being related to students’ perceptions of college environment, but Abbot discovered that "students within the university are in general 'cut free' from their family background so that many social class clues are missing." 33 Gibson, in discovering that students and faculty at a major uni­ versity have differing perceptions of the university environment, also discovered that student sub-groups enrolled in the colleges, institutes, and schools within the university held different perceptions of the university but that those were limited to perceptions of the quality of teaching and of faculty-student relationships. 34 The fact that college adjustment affects attrition cannot be denied, although a sex difference may exist 33 Joan Abbott, Student Life in Class Society (Oxford: Pergamon Press^ 1971), p. 271. 34 Baylor Price Gibson, Jr., "An Analysts of the Intellectual-Social-Cultural Environment of a Complex Society," Dissertation Abstracts, 34, No. 6 (1973), 30 87A (Northwestern University). 42 here. Astin found that, although girls surveyed in a study of college drop-outs most often indicated family problems and money as reasons for dropping out of col­ lege, male students most often listed doubts about the appropriate course of stu d y , poor academic performance, and dissatisfaction with being a student. 35 In assessing the level of self-actualization as it relates to expec­ tations and perceptions of the college environment during the freshman year, Wanko found no significant difference between freshmen in different groups when rating the institution; no significant difference in perception between self-actualized and nonself-actualized students or between resident and commuting students. He did find, however, that enrolled freshmen who participated in extra­ curricular activities did rank the institution signifi­ cantly higher on scholarship or proprietary scales than 36 those who did not, indicating that perhaps involvement in college activities produces greater commitment among those participating. Indeed, Robinson found that "the 35 Alexander W. Astin, "Personal and Environmental Factors Associated with College Dropouts Among High Apti­ tude Students," Journal of Educational Psychology 53 (June 1965): 221. 36 George Wanko, "Level of Self-Actualization as It Relates to Expectations and Perceptions of the College Environment During the Freshman Year," Dissertation Abstracts, 36, No. 3 (1975), 1338A (The Catholic University of America). 43 more involved students were in college activities, the more likely they were to have high morale." 37 Even personality has been considered as having a relationship to environmental perceptions. Britton, for instance, discovered that the college experience increases "liberalism, non-authoritarianism, and the readiness to express impulses" and that environmental perceptions 38 usually change significantly in the freshman year. Obviously the factors perceived by researchers to affect college adjustment are as numerous as student types and as varied as college life itself. Two elements seem to recur frequently in recent research, however. The first is the possible effect of residence upon college adjustment, and here researchers seem to disagree in part. Alfred determined that, across all colleges he studied a "significant relationship was attained between the residence arrangements selected by students and their perceptions of the college environ39 ment." And Rago found that residence peer groups are 37 Tora Hnezda Robinson, "The Assessment of Col­ lege Student Morale," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 4 (1972) , 1464A (University of California, Los Angeles) . 3 8 Ronald B. Britton, "Stability and Changes of Education Freshmen Personality Characteristics and Environ­ mental Perceptions," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 3 (1972), 1094A (University of Missouri-Columbia). 39 Richard Lincoln Alfred, "The Relationship of College, Places of Residence, Pattern of Preference Group 44 "very potent environmental influences affecting . . . 40 attitude changes." Chesrn discovered that the atti­ tudes and grade point averages of three freshmen groups were not significantly different, in spite of differences in residence environment.^ Apparently this issue is double faceted— relating equally to both attitude, and thus adjustment, and achievement measured by G.P.A. And probably the college education of minority youth is equally double-faceted as it relates to adjust­ ment to college life. For instance, Collymore and Baugh both investigated the effects of cultural factors— Collingmore indicating that the cultural values of Negro and Mexican American college students definitely affect their 42 educational aspirations. Roueche and Kirk listed three Identification and College Environmental Perception," Dissertation Abstracts, 32, No. 10 (1972), 5507A (The Pennsylvania State University). ^ J a m e s J. Rago, Jr., "The Influence of Under­ graduate Residence Upon Student Personnel Development," Dissertation Abstracts, 29, No. 11 (1969), 3798A (Case Western Reserve University). ^ S o r r e l l E. Chesin, "The Differential Effects of Housing on College Freshmen," Dissertation Abstracts, 28, No. 5 (1967), 1675A (Michigan State University). ^ R a y m o n d Quentin Collymore, "A Survey of the Educational Aspirations and Cultural Needs of the Negro and Mexican-American Students in Two Community Colleges in the State of Colorado," Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 11 (1971), 5654a (University of Colorado). 45 major deterrents to adjustment of nontraditional stu­ dents: alienation, powerlessness, and unrealistic aspirations. 4 3 Baugh indicated that minority parents consistently encouraged students to go to college because they believed that economic deprivation or social alienation was characterized by poor educational achievement. 44 In spite of this family orientation toward college attendance, however, Scott and Aulston discovered that social and psychological adjustment of minority students 45 did not always equal their academic adjustment and that minority students tended to be more negative in their perceptions of institutional characteristics than 46 nonminority students. Obviously the college adjustment of minority youth depends upon a meaningful relationship between aspirations and academic behavior. j^ Roueche and Kirk, p. 69. 44 James Edward Baugh, "The Experiences of Black Students in a White University: Case Study of Partici­ pants in an Educational Opportunity Program," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 10 (1973), 5654A (The UniversTty“ o^ Wisconsin). 45 Bernice Schneider Scott, "The Adjustment of College Students from Disadvantaged Homes," Dissertation Abstracts, 28, No, 4 (1967), 1313A (Columbia University). 46 Melvin Douglis Aulston, "Comparative Perceptions of the College Environment Between Minority-Group Freshmen and Minority-Group Entering Transfer Students," Disser­ tation Abstracts, 33, No. 11 (1973), 6107A (The Uni” versity of Connecticut). 46 If the relationship between these two factors is important for minority students, however, it is probably equally as important for all other developmental English students. After all, academic achievement is the objective of all programs; but, as Cort discovered, it is difficult to positively influence in a short period A of time; *7 and, as Willsey discovered, the impact of the academic environment may be greater upon behavior than academic performance. 48 If Goldman and Hudson are correct in their assessment of ability measures as compared to strategy measures, perhaps strategies may be more funda­ mental determinants of academic success than are abili- Since academic achievement of marginal students must be the major goal of all programs designed for them, and since researchers seem to disagree concerning those 47 Charles Christopher Cort, "Effects of Approach Emphasizing Student Development in the Performance and Social Psychological Adjustment Risk College Freshmen," Dissertation Abstracts, (1973), 4776A (University of Georgia). a Group Academic of High 33, No. 9 48 Alan Douglas Wellsey, "College Student Satis­ faction and Academic Performance," Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 6 (1971) , 3063A (State University of New York at Buffalo). 4 9 Roy D. Goldman and David J. Hudson, "A Multi­ variate Analysis of Academic Abilities and Strategies for Successful and Unsuccessful College Students in Different Major Fields," Journal of Educational Psychology 65 (1973): 370. 47 factors that affect academic success, further investigation of the factors influencing achievement seemed mandatory. Additional review of the literature concerning the reasons for achievement or nonachievement among college students produced a variety of factors. The first factor considered by researchers was motivation, but here the case for motivation as a deciding factor does not seem clear. Heckhausen indicated that those who have conflict-prone expectations of failure often choose less appropriate solutions. Thus failure- motivated students turn their homework in later than their 50 success-motivated fellow students. In this vein, Sarnoff and Zimbardo reported that anxious subjects did not interact with others but chose to await the cause of anxiety alone, 51 thus perhaps avoiding needed action until too late. And Pruitt reported that black students may "refuse to excell in order not to arouse the ire of 52 white associates." But in studying scores of nonreturn­ ing and returning community college freshmen, DeVecchio 50 Heinz Heckhausen, The Anatomy of Achievement Motivation (New Y o r k : Academic Press, 1967), 55. 51 Irving Sarnoff and Philip G. Zimbardo, "Anxiety, Fear, and Social Affiliation," in Current Research in Motivation, ed. Ralph Norman Haber (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), p. 565. 52 Ann S. Pruitt, "Black Poor in White Colleges— Personal Growth Goals," Journal of College Student Per­ sonnel 11 (January 1970): 2. 48 found no significant differences in their scores on the 53 Academic Motivation scale used in the study. Several researchers investigated attitude as it relates to grade success. Hurd discovered that the "affective variables important to grade success are primarily attitudinal rather than personality traits." 54 Bender determined that locus of control, self-concept, and self-actualization were not related to final grades but that these were significantly related to students1 attitudes. These factors were indirectly influential, however, for Bender discovered that attitudes were related to final grades. 55 The logical step after pursuit of the possible effects of attitude on achievement is to consider nonintellective factors and their relationship to achieve­ ment. Abell found that a number of nonintellective 5 3 Richard Charles DeVecchio, "Scholastic Apti­ tudes, Academic Motivation, Personality and Biographical Characteristics of Non-Returning and Returning Community College Freshmen," Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 9 (1971) , 4371A (University of Virginia) . 54 Donald Eugene Hurd, "The Relationship of Affec­ tive Variables to College Achievement," Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 2 (1970), 5793A (Indiana University). ~^Gary Franklin Bender, "The Relationship Between Locus of Control, Self-Concept, Self-Actualization and Cognitive and Affective Outcomes of Instruction," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 9 (1973), 4886A (Purdue University). 49 factors correlate with achievement. These are father's occupation, level dependence for financial support, father's age, mother's age, and father's occupation. He suggested, however, that the ACT is perhaps a better 56 predictor of achievement. Henry Johnson, in his study of nonintellective correlates with reading, discovered the following: For white males and females, only academic selfconcept was a significant correlate with reading beyond the .05 level. For Black males, father's educational development and parents' income were significant correlates beyond the .05 and .01 level, respectively. For Black females, the pat­ tern of correlations was similar to those found for Black males. Significant correlations beyond the .01 level were found for Black females between reading and father's educational development, mother's educational development, and parents' income. For special program females, however, the only significant correlation beyond the .02 level was found between reading and father's educational development. No significant cor­ relations were found between the non-intellective variables and reading for special program males. (Table II) William Russell Abell, "A Comparison of Selected Characteristics of Successful and Unsuccessful Students in a Junior College Remedial Program," Disser­ tation Abstracts, 30, No. 8 (1970), 3284A (Wayne State University). 50 Table II Non-intellective Correlates with M.S.U. Reading Test Scores for Black, White and Special Program Students Special Special Program White Program Black White Black Males Males Females Females Females Males (N=344} (N=4l) (N=27) (N=30) (N=62) (N=288) .058 .164 .293* .301 .154 ASC *2 4 6 ** .453 .254 .348*** .048 .416* .023 FED .148 .397*** .118 .011 .119 MED .303 .243 .269 .365 -.030 .539*** -.029 PI .035 .197 .128 -.080 -.065 HSS -.001 -.059 .244 -.097 .054 .054 BSA -.135 Significant beyond the 05 level of significance ** Significant beyond the 02 level of significance Significant beyond the 01 level of significance^ t Johnson indicated further that "educational level achieved and income of Black parents have a significant relation­ ship to the reading achievement of their children. Per­ haps, for no other reason, it is important that Black 58 students pursue educational opportunities." Just as Johnson discovered that parents' edu­ cational development, not race, was significant, Greenwood discovered that "the characteristics involving significant differences were unrelated to race, with acknowledgment 57Henry C. Johnson, "Non-intellective Correlates with Reading for Black, White, and Special Program Fresh­ men at Michigan State University," Office of Evaluation Services, Michigan State University, 197 4, p. 3. (Mimeo­ graphed. ) 58 . Ibid., p. 4. 51 that finances, parental education, and family size may aggravate nonpersistence in blacks.”59 In addition to investigation of factors affecting achievement among various races and groups, one researcher investigated psycho-social factors affecting it. Craig Stephen Brown, using the University Residence Environ­ mental Scale and the College and University Environmental Scale to test relationships between several of these factors and achievement, discovered only one URES scale, Innovation, to be reasonably significant, although not significant enough to be used to predict progress. 60 In fact, several studies, after investigating potential nonintellective factors, judged them to be less influential than academic factors. Cooper, after discovering only six of eleven nonintellective factors to affect achievement, judged final grade point average significant for all groups of students studied. 6 X And 59 Charles Huddie Greenwood, "Characteristics of Black Freshman Dropouts at Ball State University," Dissertation Abstracts, 32, No. 11 (1972), 6118A (Indiana University). fi0 Craig Stephen Brown, "The Relationship Between Psycho-Social Factors and the Scholastic Achievement of College Students," Dissertation Abstracts, 34, No. 5 (197 3), 2 323A (Montana State University). ^ W i l t o n Roy Cooper, "A Longitudinal Study of Characteristics Associated with Attendance Persistence for Selected Groups of Students at Arizona State Uni­ versity," Dissertation Abstracts, 34, No. 9 (1974), 5655A (Arizona State University). 52 Hammel, after discovering that correlation analysis indi­ cated that "several nonintellective scales did obtain significant relationships" stated also that "results also showed that most of the variation in the criteria explained by the nonintellective scales could be accounted for by HSGPA (high school G.P.A.) and MSAT (Minnesota Scholastic Aptitude T e s t ) . " ^ Although a variety of factors may be related to achievement, academic characteristics of educationally disadvantaged students undoubtedly affect learning success most directly. Several studies have analyzed the academic preparation and achievement of such students. Hershey— in comparing mean grade point average, mean credits earned, and absence of "Summer Test Admit" and regularly admitted freshmen at Michigan State University— discovered that the mean GPA of the STA group was consis­ tently lower than the matched regular admit group; their mean number of credits earned was usually lower, and their rate of absence was higher. 63 Havens discovered ^ W i l l i a m Donald Hammel, "Predicting Multiple Criteria of College Success with Intellective and Non­ intellective Predictors for New College Liberal Arts Freshmen at the University of Minnesota," Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 12 (1973) , 7043A (University oi: Minnesota). 63 David E. Hershey, "An Analysis of the Academic Achievement and Progress of Students Admitted to Michigan State University Through the 'Summer Test Admit' Program of 1965-1969," Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 5 (1970), 212 8A (Michigan State University). 53 that Regents Scholarship Examination scores and grade point average earned by students in an Educational Oppor­ tunities Program were significantly lower than those 64 earned by regularly admitted freshmen. And Rayburn discovered that the overall academic achievement level of Project One Hundred students at the University of Detroit in reading, mathematics, and language was lower than that of other students. 6 5 If the findings of Hershey, Havens, and Rayburn are reasonably valid, the major achievement-producing quality must be scholastic ability. In a study of fresh­ men at Tuskeegee Institute, Wilson concluded that ability and personal adjustment affected these students* achieve­ ment.^^ And Delaney discovered that "academic achievement and environmental perceptual congruance were more dependent 64 Janet M. Havens, "Relationship Between Some Intellective Factors of Disadvantaged High Risk Students and Their Success in College," Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 11 (1971), 6201A (Rutgers University The State University of New Jersey). R Wendell Gilbert Rayburn, "An Analysis of the Aspiration, Motivation, and Academic Achievement Levels of Disadvantaged Students as Compared to Advantaged Stu­ dents at the University of Detroit," Dissertation Abstracts, 32, No. 5 (1972), 2134A (Wayne State University). fifi Anaise Victorianne Wilson, "A Study of the Relationship of Selected Factors to the Academic Achieve­ ment of College Freshmen in the School of Education of Tuskegee Institute," Dissertation Abstracts, 29, No. 1 (1968), 144A (New York University). 54 upon ability than upon socioeconomic status.'* 67 But even ability, if squandered or unrecognized, may not produce academic achievement. As Kifer has stated: With success in academic tasks in the school comes positive personality characteristics; with failure comes lower levels of regard for self and abilities. The relationships become stronger and more powerful as success or failure becomes prolonged and as a consistent pattern of accomplishment emerges.6 8 Although developmental programs must facilitate success soon enough to establish accomplishment and avoid failure, they must also begin where students are academically and where Comprehensive English students have been is the concern of the next chapter. G7 John F. Delaney, "Change in Environmental Per­ ceptions of College Freshmen as Related to Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement," Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 11 (1971), 6188A (Rutgers University, The State University of New York). 68 Edward Kifer, "Relationships Between Academic Achievement and Personality Characteristics: A QuasiLongitudinal Study," American Educational Research Journal 12 (Spring 1975): 205. CHAPTER III RESEARCH PLANS FOR STUDYING COMPREHENSIVE ENGLISH STUDENTS A review of the research peripheral to this study produced few studies of the academic survival of develop­ mental English students, even though most academic insti­ tutions have increasing numbers of them. Possible reasons for the lack of such studies are the fact that develop­ mental English has never been a prestigious topic and the reality that few teachers of developmental English have much time to do research. In a real sense, developmental English students are poorly understood step children of the academic system, and Comprehensive English students are no exception. Because Comprehensive English students do not fit the traditional English academic mold, an assessment of their academic preparation seems the logical first step in the design of a research plan since the researcher must first determine if disparity in preparation influences results. Although beginning students are channeled into Comprehensive English Courses on the basis 55 56 of raw scores on the M.S.U. Reading Test, the SAT Verbal, ACT English, or M.S.U. English tests, percentiles offer a more accurate picture of how these students compare with all M.S.U. freshmen. Percentile scores also indi­ cate that the Comprehensive English group is very hetero­ geneous; for they represent a wide range of scores between the designated cut-off points for Comprehensive English and a limited number of scores above the established Com­ prehensive English level, indicating that a few students not required to take ATL 101 actually do so. The official cut-off scores, the lowest allowable scores for admission to the regular sequence, presently are raw scores that are transferred into M.S.U. percen­ tiles appropriate for each year. Although these cut-off scores change slightly over the years, the ones used in 1972 and 1974 were 4 3 in the M.S.U. Reading Test, 21 in vocabulary for assignment to 101B instead of 101A, 410 in SAT Verbal, and 19 in ACT English. Students whose orien­ tation test scores fall below these levels are instructed on their orientation information sheets to register for developmental subjects. When academic advisers help students complete their schedules, then, they indicate specific developmental courses. Although a few students do not register for the courses indicated, most of them do. 57 Since all entering students required to take American Thought and Language are channeled into the developmental level or the regular level by orientation testing, the composition of the Comprehensive English group is reflected in orientation test scores. Because all Comprehensive English students have the M.S.U. Reading test in common, reading scores have been used as the pivot percentiles in test score combinations of students for which test percentile scores are available. The percentile designations in the following tables repre­ sent the following orientation tests: M.S.U. Reading Test, total percentile score; SAT VERBAL percentile; ACT ENGLISH percentile. When no SAT or ACT percentiles are available, MSU ENGLISH percentiles are used. For a very small number of students, only one score is avail­ able. A very small number of transfer students have M.S.U. Reading Test scores. Most Comprehensive English students have one of the three percentile combinations: Reading— SAT Verbal, Reading— ACT English, or Reading— M.S.U. English. Both scores in each percentile combi­ nation must be below the cut-off score to place students at the developmental level. Tables 3 and 4 represent Fall, 1972 and Fall, 1974 combinations of test percen­ tiles . Close scrutiny of Tables 3 and 4 produces some interesting comparisons. Over 68 percent of the 1974 TABLE 3 FALL QUARTER, 19 72 MSU Reading Test Percen­ tiles Number Number With SAT Verbal Range of Number SAT With Verbal ACT Percen­ English tiles Range of Number ACT With English MSU Percen­ English tiles Range of MSU MSU Reading English Test Percen­ Only tiles 00-04 207 167 00-71 36 00-18 1 03 05-09 178 129 00-41 40 02-51 7 00-22 10-14 246 178 01-51 55 00-61 3 15-30 15-19 66 47 02-38 18 04-24 1 10 20-24 18 15 02-56 3 01-14 25-29 9 7 07-56 1 61 1 58 35-39 7 6 07-38 1 02 40-44 4 12 14-67 1 70 50-54 2 1 30 55-59 2 2 10 42 1 60-64 65-69 2 1 70-74 4 4 41-74 80-84 1 1 82 85-89 90-94 Excused Special = 2 51 1 ACT Only 1 1 1 1 SAT Only 1 TABLE 4 FALL QUARTER, 1974 MSU Reading Test Percen­ tiles 00-04 05-09 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 Number 217 277 164 10 9 9 13 5 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 Number With SAT Verbal Range of SAT Verbal Percen­ tiles 112 142 78 4 2 7 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 00-20 00-14 01-46 04-34 12-15 23-50 17-50 72 10 23 11 30 54 2 3 93 93-95 Number With ACT English Range of ACT English Percen­ tiles 105 135 86 6 7 1 5 3 2 00-27 00-27 00-56 00-24 11-75 81 05-45 14-81 05-26 2 2 1 1 Transfer Students = 4 (2— MSU English: 1— Reading 28, MSU English 20) Excused Special = 1 Number With MSU English 1 Range of MSU English Percen­ tiles Reading Only 20 1 1 20 1 26 30-37 05-32 27 88 SAT 24, 58; 1— Reading Only: 77; 60 Comprehensive English students fell below the tenth per­ centile in the M.S.U. Reading test as compared to slightly over 51 percent of the 1972 students. Although the 1974 group produced more SAT percentiles of 90 or above than the 1972 group, the 1972 students with M.S.U. Reading Test percentiles below 15 had a modest number of higher SAT and ACT percentiles. For instance, the established SAT cut-off score for both 1972 and 1974 was the raw score of 410. The M.S.U. percentile for this score was 20 in 1972 and 23 in 1974. In 1972, 7.6 percent of the 567 Comprehensive English students submitting SAT scores had SAT verbal scores above the 2 0th percentile, while in 1974 only 3.7 percent of the 724 students had per­ centile scores above the 23rd, probably indicating that fewer students eligible for regular sequence courses took Comprehensive English courses. Although the number is still very small, the presence of transfer students at the Comprehensive English level in 19 74 may indicate an increased number of transfer students who had not completed American Thought and Language requirements. Equally indicative of the characteristics of Comprehensive English students are the M.S.U. Reading Test percentiles as shown in Table 5. Percentages in Table 5 show slightly less variation than those of either the SAT or the ACT. In assessing percentages, 9 3.3 per­ cent of the 1972 reading scores were below the 20th 61 TABLE 5 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL IN DESIGNATED CATEGORIES MSU Reading Test Percentiles 1972 Total-746 19 74 Total-72 4 Percentage of Total Percentage of Total 00-04 27.7 30.0 05-09 23.8 38.2 10-14 33.0 22.6 15-19 8.8 1.4 20-24 2 .4 1.2 25-29 1.2 1.2 30-34 1.8 35-39 0.9 0.7 40-44 0.5 0.4 0.2 45-49 50-54 0.2 55-59 0 .2 0.1 0.4 60-64 65-69 0.2 0.4 70-74 0.5 0.1 0.1 75-79 80-84 0.1 0.1 85-89 0.2 90-94 0.4 62 percentile while 92.2 percent of the 1974 scores were below that level, even though the 1974 students had a few more high scores than the 1972 group. The 1974 group, however, had 16.7 percent more percentile scores below the 10th percentile. Thus the 1974 group had a greater concentration of very low percentiles but a broader range in the small number of large percentiles. The academic picture of the Comprehensive English group, then, is one of basic consistency plus occasional variation? and some generalizations can be made about them. First, most of them fall below the 15th percentile in the M.S.U. Reading Test and the 20th percentile in all other orientation tests. Although most of them fall below the cut-off scores for all orientation tests, a small number are eligible for regular sequence courses but take Comprehensive English instead. Reading seems to be a common problem with many students. It is evident also that the heterogeneity perceived by Comprehensive English teachers may result from several factors other than academic preparation as measured by orientation test scores, since the majority of those scores fall within the same limits. The predictor variables related to the criterion variable. Course Grade, may be the following: Grade, (1) Attitude toward the Course, (2) Expected (3) Expectation or Assessment of Course Experience, 63 (4) Expectation of Future at M.S.U., with M.S.U., (5) Satisfaction (6) Academic Self-Concept, and (7) Assess­ ment of Social Life. Population of Study Because course grade and each of the predictor variables are the logical correlational categories, the population of the study includes those ATL 101A and 101B students with pre and post results on the research instru­ ment, the ATL 101 Course Opinion Survey, plus final grades in the course. Since questions concerning students' expectations of future at M.S.U., satisfaction with the university, and assessment of social life were not added until the 1972 post-test, pre-test results for these questions cannot be tabulated for 1972. Because cor­ relational studies do not require random sampling, the experimental population includes all 1972 and 1974 respondents with the necessary requirements of pre and post results plus final course grade. Instrument The instrument used in the study is the ATL 101 Course Opinion Survey originally created by Evaluation Services in 1969. Limited revisions were made by Evalu­ ation Services prior to 1972 and were revised by that unit in 1972 to add the post-survey questions previously mentioned and further revised by this writer in 1974 to 64 add questions concerning the expected quality of course work and the attitude toward, as well as success in, high school English. Both years the surveys were administered in the classroom by classroom teachers. Frequency distributions for all items and computer cards for all students were made by Evaluation Services in 1972. These cards have been revised to match the order of the 1974 cards. Since the results of the entire survey will not be used in the study, included here are the pre and post questions for the possible predictor variables only. Complete pre and post survey forms of the instrument used in this study can be found in Appendix A. Variables are labeled here as they will be computer correlated. Attitude Toward the Course As you begin ATL 101, what is your general attitude toward taking this course? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Exceptionally favorable (enthusiastic) Very favorable Favorable Probably favorable Neutral, no feelings one way or the other Probably negative Negative Very negative Exceptionally negative (disgusted) Now that you have almost completed the course, what is your general attitude toward ATL 101? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Exceptionally favorable (enthusiastic) Very favorable Favorable Probably favorable Neutral, no feelings one way or the other 65 6. 7. 8. 9. Probably negative Negative Very negative Exceptionally negative (disgusted) Expected Grade What grade do you expect to earn in ATL 101? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 About what grade do you think you should receive for your work in ATL 101? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 Expectation and Final Assessment of Course Experience For me, ATL 101 will be ________________ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very efficient. somewhat efficient. neither efficient nor inefficient. somewhat inefficient. very inefficient. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very meaningful. somewhat meaningful. neither meaningful nor meaningless. somewhat meaningless. very meaningless. 66 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very boring. somewhat boring. neither boring nor interesting. somewhat interesting. very interesting. 1 . very worthless. 2 . somewhat worthless. 3 . neither worthless nor valuable. 4. somewhat valuable. 5. very valuable. 1 . very necessary. 2 . somewhat necessary. 3 . neither necessary nor unnecessary. 4. somewhat unnecessary. 5. very unnecessary. For me, ATL 101 was ____________________ 1 . very efficient. 2 . somewhat efficient. 3. neither efficient nor inefficient. 4. somewhat inefficient. 5. very inefficient. 1 . very meaningful. 2 . somewhat meaningful. 3. neither meaningful nor meaningless. 4. somewhat meaningless. 5. very meaningless. 1 . very boring. 2 . somewhat boring. 3 . neither boring nor interesting. 4. somewhat interesting. 5. very interesting. 1 . very worthless. 2 . somewhat worthless. 3. neither worthless nor valuable. 4. somewhat valuable. 5. very valuable. 1 . very necessary, 2 . somewhat necessary. 3. neither necessary nor unnecessary. 4. somewhat unnecessary. 5. very unnecessary. 67 Expectation of Future at M.S.U. My feelings about m y future at Michigan State are 1 . really great. 2 . pretty good. 3. mixed— hard to say. 4 . not very good. 5. pretty discouraging. My feelings about my future at Michigan State are 1 . really great. 2 . pretty good. 3 . mixed— hard to say. 4. not very good. 5 . pretty discouraging. Satisfaction with M.S.U. At this moment I am_____________________________ 1. 2. 3. glad I came here. not sure if coming here was the right thing to do. sorry I came here. Now that I have been at Michigan State for a term I am 1. 2. 3. glad I came here. not sure if coming here was the right thing to do. sorry I came here. Academic Self-Concept With respect to my academic strengths and weaknesses at this time____________________________ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I I I I I am sure I know myself and what I can do. think I know myself and what I can do. d on1t know if I know myself and what I can do. think I do not know myself and what I can do. know I do not know myself and what I can do. With respect to my academic strengths and weaknesses, I find that since I have been at Michigan State__________ 1. 2. I am sure I know myself and what I can do better. I think I know myself and what I can do better. 68 3. 4. 5. I d o n 1t know myself and what I can do any better than I did before. I d o n 11 know myself and what I can do as well as I did before. I d o n 't know myself and what I can do nearly as well as I did before. Assessment of Social Life I think my social life at Michigan state this term will be 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. bad, would like much more. not too bad, but could be better. good, the "right" amount. not too bad, but could be worse. bad, too much for me to handle everything. My social life at Michigan State this term was 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. bad, would have liked much more. not too bad, but could have been better. good, the "right" amount. not too bad, but could have been worse. bad, too much for me to handle everything. Statistical Treatment of the Data All items on the survey answer sheets will be tabulated, and computer cards will be made for each stu­ dent including the following items: Course (101A or 101B) Term Student number Pre responses to all questions Post responses to all questions Course grade Statistical treatment of the data will be conducted through the use of the facilities of the Computer Center, Michigan State University. 69 Methodology in the Analysis of Data In analyzing data, the first step will be to determine the instrument variables to be correlated, combining related items and naming them. Thus Attitude toward the Course will be determined by the scale standing on the question concerning general attitude toward the course; Expected Grade, Expectation of Future at M.S.U., Satisfaction with M.S.U., Academic Self-Concept, and Assessment of Social Life will be determined by the scale standing of questions dealing with these variables; Assessment of Course Experience will be determined by the scale standing of a composite of five questions relating to expectation or assessment of course experience. Having identified the predictor variables that represent attitude toward the course and college adjust­ ment, multiple correlations will be determined between these variables and the criterion variable, Course Grade. The statistical program to be used will be the multiple correlation subprogram of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation. The analyses of the 1972 and 1974 coefficients will be done separately and in 1972-1974 combinations. Compari­ sons will be made between significant 1972 and 1974 cor­ relation coefficients. Having determined correlations, the portion of the final course grade determined by specific post variables and combinations of post 70 variables will be investigated using the following regression equation: Y = 2 + x 1 + B 2 x 2 + B^ x 3 + B^ x 4 + Bg x 5 + B g X 6 + B ^ x7. In order to further compare 1972 and 1974 results, a comparison of pre and post instrument tabulations for all 1972 students will be made. The same procedure will be followed for 1974, then the differences between 1972 and 1974 results will be determined. The statistical program used will be the Finn Program of repeated analysis of variance. The only limitation to the comparison is the absence of the college adjustment variables on the pre form of the instrument used in 1972. The following illustrative table shows the process by which year groups will be compared with respect to pre and post predictor variables and the null hypotheses to be tested. TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF 1972-1974: Year Subjects 1 1972 1 Total Number of Subjects 1974 1 Total Number of Subjects ILLUSTRATIVE TABLE Pre Variables Individual Score Post Variables Individual Score 71 Null Hypothesis 1 : There is no significant difference between 1972 and 1974 groups based on significant predictor variables. Null Hypothesis 2 : There is no significant difference between pre and post on each predictor variable. Null Hypothesis 3 : There is no significant interaction between year groups and differences between pre and post. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF COLLECTED DATA Since this study of Comprehensive English students required both a search for possible relationships between variables and a comparison of year groups on the basis of those variables, the analysis was three fold. The first step was to investigate possible relationships between predictor variables and the criterion variable, Final Course Grade. The second was to determine the degree of influence of the predictor variables upon the criterion variable, and the third was to compare year groups on the basis of the predictor variables. The first research task was to identify and name the various predictor variables. As stated in Chapter III, the logical ones to be correlated with the criterion variable were the following: 1. Attitude toward the Course— Although originally it seemed possible that Attitude toward the Course should include results from the attitude question plus Assessment of Course Experience, 72 73 further analysis indicated that attitude and assessment were too different to be considered part of the same process. Ultimately Attitude toward the Course was assumed to include the attitudinal question only. Assessment of Course Experience was considered to be a possibly related but separate variable. 2. College Adjustment— College adjustment was origi­ nally perceived to include a synthesis of the following variables: Expectation of Future at M.S.U., Satisfaction with M.S.U., Academic SelfConcept, and Assessment of Social Life. A second consideration suggested that factors such as social life and academic strengths and weaknesses were very different, even though they were probably legitimate single facets making up a multifaceted college adjustment. Tentatively, then, they were considered to be individual variables. Although Expected Grade was not considered to be a predictor variable, it seemed probable that it was related to Final Course Grade in some way, at least in post variable combinations. At the beginning of the study, however, it was not estimated to be as important as the college adjustment variables in determining course grade. 74 Having made these tentative assumptions, the first statistical analysis was to utilize the computer sub program, Pearson Product Moment Correlations, to determine correlation coefficients between pre and pre variables, post and post variables, and pre and post variables for the years 1974 and 1972 and 1972 and 1974 combined. All correlation coefficients are listed in Appendix B in year, pre x pre, post x post, and pre x post groups in the order of their significance. Sig­ nificant 1974 correlations at the .5-1 level are pre­ sented in Table 7. The significant 1974 correlations appear to be logical ones. In the pre x pre relationships, students' initial attitudes toward the course were naturally expected to be closely related to their expectations of the course experience, and their expectations of their future at M.S.CJ. were expected to be closely related to their initial satisfaction with M.S.U. The fact that these were positive correlations in the 1974 analysis indicates that an improvement in one variable accompanied an improvement in the other. In post x post combinations, a reasonably strong correlation existed between students' attitudes toward the course and their assessment of their completed course experience. Again this was a positive relationship, indicating that the more positive their attitudes toward the course were, the more positive 75 TABLE 7 1974: SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS Pre-Pre Attitude toward Course .5088 Expectation of Future at M.S.U. .5005 Expectation of Course Experience Post-Post Attitude toward Course .6549 Assessment of Course Experience Post-Final Grade Expected Grade -.6 82 5 Final Course Grade Satisfaction with M.S.U. 76 their assessment of their course experience became. Co n ­ versely the relationship between the grades students expected to earn and their final course grade was reasonably strong, but negative. This indicates that, although at the end of a term expected grade was related to final grade, to be, the higher students expected their grades the less likely that the actual final grade would meet their expectations. Significant correlations were slightly different for 1972, as indicated in Table 8. In 1972 significant pre x pre combinations of variables were Attitude toward the Course x Expectation of Course Experience and Expected Grade x Academic Self-Concept. Although the first cor­ relation was important in 1974 also, the second was not significant in 1974. Apparently at the beginning of the term 1972 students expected to earn the grade reflecting their own academic strengths or weaknesses. Significant pre correlations in 1974 seemed to reflect students' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with M.S.U., whereas the 1972 pre correlations seemed to reflect their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with themselves. In the post x post 1972 correlations, the reverse apparently was true. There was a meaningful correlation between the students' assessment of their future at M.S.U. and their satisfaction with the institution and 77 TABLE 1972: 8 SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS Pre-Pre Attitude toward Course .5616 .5515 Expected Grade Expectation of Course Experience Academic SelfConcept Post-Post Attitude toward Course .7566 Assessment of Future at M.S.U. .5216 Assessment of Course Experience Post-Final Course Grade Expected Grade -.5502 Final Course Grade Satisfaction with M.S.U. 78 a very strong correlation between students* attitudes toward the course and their assessment of their course experience. Actually strong post x post correlations between these two variables were typical for both 1972 and 1974, indicating that these were probably consistently related variables. Perhaps this is not surprising, for often attitude toward any activity affects assessment of that activity. Having considered 1972 and 1974 separately, the following table (Table 9) includes the significant cor­ relations for these two years combined. These combined correlations indicate that combining year groups pin­ points the strongest variables, for the only significant correlation between pre variables and the strongest sig­ nificant correlation between post variables was Attitude toward the Course x Assessment of Course Experience. In addition, the relationship between Expected Grade and Final Course Grade was again strong in a negative direction. Having completed the necessary correlations, the following assumptions seem reasonable: 1. The original assumption that Attitude toward the Course and Assessment of Course Experience were separate but closely related variables was proved to be true. Although the two were significantly correlated for both year groups, they were not 79 TABLE 9 COMBINED 1972-1974: SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS Pre—Pre Attitude toward Course .5375 Expectation of Course Experience Post-Post Attitude toward Course .7214 Assessment of Course Experience Expected Grade -.6154 Final Course Grade 80 always equally correlated with other variables, and none of these correlations were significant. Some examples from the 1974 post correlations are illustrative: Attitude toward Course x Academic Self-Concept .1236 Assessment of Course Experience x Academic Self-Concept .1232 Attitude toward Course x Satisfaction with M.S.U. .0506 Assessment of Course Experience x Satisfaction with M.S.U. .1172 Attitude toward Course x Assessment of Social Life .0260 Assessment of Course Experience x Assessment of Social Life -.0619 Attitude toward Course x Assessment of Future at M.S.U. .0611 Assessment of Course Experience x Assessment of Future at M.S.U. .1166 2. The original assumption that the college adjustment variables were separate proved to be true, for only Expectation of Future at M.S.U. and Satis­ faction with M.S.U. were significantly correlated at .5, and then in pre x pre 1974 only. 3. The supposition that college adjustment variables were more closely related to course grade than expected grade proved to be false, for this cor­ relation was significant for both years and for the two years combined. 81 Having determined significant correlations between variables, the next task was to discover which predictor variables had the most influence upon Final Course Grade. Since none of the pre x post correlation coefficients were significant for any year groups, only post relationships were investigated by using the regression equation pre­ sented in Chapter III. Table 10 represents significant relationships between the criterion variable and predictor variables for the year 1974. TABLE 10 1974: REGRESSION TABLE OF SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITERION VARIABLE AND PREDICTOR VARIABLES R2 Predictor Variables < P “ R Expected Grade .41460 .69573 .000 Attitude Toward Course .47819 .69620 .009 R significant at - .05 For the year 1974 only two variables proved to have an unmistakably significant influence upon Final 2 Course Grade. Since R represents the percentage of variance in Final Course Grade accounted for by the pre­ dictor variables and R represents the multiple cor­ relation between the criterion variable and the respective predictor variables, it is clear that the expected grade accounted for 41.46 percent of the variance in final 82 grade, that students1 attitude toward the course plus the grade they expected accounted for 47.81 percent of the final grade, and that their attitude toward the course accounted for only 6.36 percent of the variance in that grade. Without a doubt, students' post grade expectations influenced their final grades more than any other factor in 1974. A l t h o u g h p e r c e n t a g e s w e r e d i f f e r e n t in 1972, Table 11 shows that again R for Expected Grade was sig­ nificant at p - .000. Attitude toward the Course, although significant at slightly above .05, probably can be con­ sidered meaningful also. Interestingly, however, these two variables accounted for only 32.23 percent of the variance in the final grade compared to 41.46 percent in 1974, and Attitude toward the Course accounted for only .5 percent of the variance in the grade. TABLE 11 R Expected Grade .31713 .56314 .000 Attitude toward the Course .32232 .56773 .053 R significant at - .05 1A R2 Predictor Variables •0 1972: REGRESSION TABLE OF SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CRITERION VARIABLE AND PREDICTOR VARIABLES 83 In 1974 the variable closest to Attitude toward the Course was Assessment of Course Experience (p - .055), and in 1972 that variable was Academic Self-Concept (p - .065). Thus Expected Grade, Attitude toward the Course, Assessment of Course Experience, and Academic Self-Concept became the categories used in comparing the years 1972 and 1974. Completing the general procedure described in Table 6 of Chapter III, repeated measures of analysis of variance were used to determine the differ­ ences between years, between pre and post (measures), and between years and pre versus post. Each one of the four variables was analyzed in this way, and then the following three null hypotheses were tested for each variable: Null Hypothesis 1 : There was no significant difference between 1972 and 1974 year groups. Null Hypothesis 2 : There was no significant difference between pre and post for both years. Null Hypothesis 3 ; There was no significant interaction between years and differences between pre and post. The following table represents the analysis of variance for Attitude toward the Course. 84 TABLE 12 Source Year ATTITUDE TOWARD THE COURSE MS 44.9273 3.174701 Error df 1A ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE: F 1 14.1517 .0002 780 46.6113 1 28.0419 .0001 Year x Measures 3.8707 1 2.3286 .1275 Error 1.662203 Measures 780 For Attitude toward the Course the following decisions were made concerning the three null hypotheses: Null Hypothesis 1 was rejected because there was a significant difference between 1972 and 1974 year groups at p - .0002. Null Hypothesis 2 was rejected because there was a significant difference between pre and post at p - .0001. Null Hypothesis 3 was accepted because the inter­ action between years and differences between pre and post was not significant at p - .1275. Having tested hypotheses, the next step was to determine means for each variable for each year. The following is the table of means for Attitude toward the Course. 85 TABLE 13 TABLE OF MEANS: ATTITUDE TOWARD THE COURSE N Pre-Attitude Toward Course Post-Attitude Toward Course Year Average 1972 400 3.527 3. 970 3.749 1974 382 3.288 3.531 3.410 Stem Average 782 3.410 3.756 Since all instrument responses were coded to number the most positive responses at 1, in all means tables and graphs lower numbers indicate the most positive responses or the highest expected grades. Thus for Attitude toward the Course , the pre attitudes were higher in 1974 than in 19 72, as were the post attitudes. In both 1972 and 1974, pre attitudes were higher than post, but there was less difference between pre and post in 1974 than in 1972, indicating that 1974 students' ulti­ mate assessments were closer to their original ones than were those of 1972 students. The following (page 86) is the analysis of variance table for Expected Grade. The same null hypotheses were tested with the following results: Null Hypothesis 1 was rejected because the dif­ ference between year groups was significant at p - .0001. 86 TABLE 14 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE: MS Source 20.3326 Year Error .931035 Measures df 1 EXPECTED GRADE F p - 21.8387 .0001 858 259.4376 1 438.3441 .0001 2.7628 1 4.6681 .0311 Y x M .5918471 Error 858 Null Hypothesis 2 was rejected because there was a significant difference at p - .0001 between pre and post. Null Hypothesis 3 was rejected because there was a significant interaction at p - .0311 between years and differences between pre and post. The following table (page 87) shows the means for Expected Grade. Table 15 produces the following comparisons: 1. Expected pre and post grades in 1972 (1.956 and 2.805) were higher than pre and post grades in 1974 2. (2.255 and 2.943). Expected grades were higher in pre 1972 than post 1972. 87 TABLE 15 TABLE OF MEANS: EXPECTED GRADE N Pre-Expected Grade Post-Expected Grade 1972 476 1.956 2.805 2.381 1974 384 2.255 2.943 2.599 Item Average 860 2 .089 2. 867 3. , Year Average Expected grades were higher in pre 1974 than post 1974 , although the di f ference was less than in 1972. 4. Expected pre grades were higher in 1972 than in 19 74, but expected post grades in 19 72 and 1974 were most similar (2.805 versus 2.945), indicating that in the beginning of the quarter 1972 students expected better course achievement than 1974 students, but that at the end of the quarter their expectations were about the same. Figure 1, page 88, illustrates these points and shows the significant interaction between years and pre and post differences indicating comparable relationships between years and pre versus post. ordinal, in the same direction. The interaction is 88 Post Post Pre 2.0 - ■ Pre 1.5 -1.0 -- 0.0 1972 1974 Fig. 1. Interaction: Years x Pre versus Post; the smaller the number, the higher the expected grade. Because the variable, Assessment of Course Exper­ ience, was a composite of the post answers to five inter­ related questions, means were larger for this variable than other variables. All questions within the variable were arranged to go from positive to negative. Again the null hypotheses tested for previous variables were used to consider Assessment of Course Experience. Null Hypothesis 1 was rejected because there was a significant difference at p - .0001 between 1972 and 1974. Null Hypothesis 2 was also rejected because there was a significant difference at p - .0001 between pre and post. 89 T A B L E 16 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE: MS Source Year Error F < P ~ 61.0389 .0001 1 242.1673 .0001 4 .2096 .0406 df 1087.8223 1 17.8210 790 2200.56 Measures ASSESSMENT OF COURSE EXPERIENCE Y x M 38.2524 1 Error 9.0867 790 Null Hypothesis 3 was rejected because there was a significant interaction at p - .0406 between years and differences between pre and post. The table of means (page 90) for this variable is shown in Table 17. With small numbers indicating high assessments, it is obvious that in 1972 the pre assessments were higher than the post. This was also true for 19 74. In addition, both pre and post assessments were higher in 1974 (8.916 and 10.959) in 1972 than the pre and post assessments (10.263 and 12.928), but the difference between pre and post was similar for both years. Figure 2 illustrates the significant interaction between year and variable indicating comparable relationships between pre versus post for the two y e a r s . ordinal. The interaction is 90 T A B L E 17 T A B L E OF M E A N S : A S S E S S M E N T OF C O U R S E E X P E R I E N C E N Pre-Course Experience 1972 400 10.263 12.928 11.5955 1974 392 8.916 10.959 9.9375 Item Average 792 9.596 11.953 Post-Course Experience Year Average Post Post 11 ” Pre 10-Pre 8 ” 6 ” 5 -4 -- 2 -- 1 -- 1972 1974 Fig. 2. Interaction: Year x Pre versus Post; the smaller the number, the higher the assessment. 91 The last variable to be considered in comparing the findings for 1972 and 1974 is Academic Self-Concept. Results were as shown in Table 18. TABLE 18 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE: Source MS 32.4738 Year .541573 Error ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT df 1 F P “ 59 .9620 .0001 777 M e a sures 29.1200 1 75.2009 .0001 Y x M 25.5023 1 65.8584 .0001 777 65.8584 .0001 .38723 Error Null Hypothesis 1 was rejected because there was a significant difference at p - .0001 between 1972 and 1974. Null Hypothesis 2 was rejected because there was a significant difference at p - .0001 between pre and post. Null Hypothesis 3 was rejected because there was a significant interaction at p - .0001 between years and differences between pre and post. The table of means (Table 19) shows that in 1972 Academic Self-Concept was lower for pre post (1.741). (2.261) than for Although in 1974 Academic Self-Concept was also lower for pre than for post, the difference was 92 smaller (1.718 versus 1.707). In addition, both pre and post Academic Self-Concept in 1974 were higher than pre and post in 1972. Figure 3 clearly shows that students had less confidence in their academic strength at the beginning of the quarter and more at the end in both 1972 and 19 74 but that the change in confidence was greater in 1972. TABLE 19 TABLE OF MEANS: ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT N P re-Ac ademi c Self-Concept Post-Academic Self-Concept 1972 400 2.261 1.741 2.001 1974 379 1.718 1.707 1.7125 Item Average 779 1.997 1.7245 Year Average Conclusions The conclusions drawn from the analysis of data required first a consideration of the general hypotheses stated in Chapter I. Hypothesis I : There is a relationship between Attitude toward the Course and Final Course Grade. 93 Pre 2.0 - - Post Pre ■*Post 1.5 -1.0 - - 1972 1974 Fig. 3. Interaction: Year x Pre versus Post; the smaller the number, the higher the self-concept. Decision: Although the correlation coefficients for Attitude toward the Course x Final Course Grade were not significant in either 19 72 or 19 74, the regression analysis showed a significant relationship between these two variables. However, Attitude toward the Course accounted for only 6.36 percent of the variance in Final Course Grade in 1974 and only .51 percent in 1972. Thus it may be assumed that there was a limited relationship between Attitude toward the Course and Final Course Grade in 1972 and 1974. Hypothesis I I : There is a relationship between College Adjustment and Attitude toward the Course. Decision: College Adjustment was considered to be a loose grouping of the separate variables of Assess­ ment of Future at M.S.U., Satisfaction with M.S . U . , 94 Academic Self-Concept, and Assessment of Social Life. Since there were no significant correlations between Attitude toward the Course and any of these variables, there apparently was no relationship between that variable and the college adjustment variables. Hypothesis III: There is a relationship between College Adjustment and Course Grade. Decision: Since analysis produced no significant correlations between any of the college adjustment variables and final grade, it can be assumed that there was no relationship between College Adjustment and Final Course Grade in either 1972 or 1974. Hypothesis I V : There is a relationship between Attitude toward the Course College Adjustment, and Course Grade. Decision: Since there was no significant relationship between Attitude toward the Course and any of the College Adjustment variables, no significant cor­ relation between College Adjustment variables and Final Course Grade, and a limited relationship between Attitude toward the Course and Final Course Grade, apparently little multiple relationship existed between these three categories in either 1972 or 1974. 95 In addition to the general hypotheses forming the basis for this study, concomitant findings concerning relationships not initially perceived as significant are perhaps more important than the original hypotheses. As stated in Chapter III, Expected Grade was suspected to be slightly related to Final Course Grade. Ultimately the analysis showed this variable to be responsible for over 41 percent of the variance in the final grade in 1974 and over 31 percent in 1972. The role of Assessment of Course Experience in affecting Final Course Grade, almost as significant as Attitude toward the Course in 1974, adds a previously unperceived dimension to what students bring to the course. And speculation concerning the possible additional factors that influenced the remaining percentages of the Final Course Grade both years could form the basis for future study. These and other impli­ cations and recommendations concerning them will be dis­ cussed in Chapter V. CHA P T E R V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary This study of the relationships between 1972 and 1974 Comprehensive English students' attitudes toward their course, college adjustment, and final course grade represents the culmination of years of concern about the ingredients of academic success among developmental English students. Through the years, many teachers have firmly believed that initial attitudes affect grades and that adjustments outside the classroom are often as important as those within; but because Comprehensive English instructors have been both temporary and devoid of released time, no investigations of such theories have been made. The present study describes the complexities of the perceived problems and speculates concerning the effects of those complexities upon the Comprehensive English group. It surveys related literature— finding no other studies of relationships between the research 96 97 variables but numerous analyses and appraisals of nontraditional programs, descriptions of remedial or developmental students, attitudes toward these students, factors affecting their academic achievement, and the social and academic climates influencing both cognitive and affective instructional results. The study was limited to Fall Quarter, 1972 and 1974 ATL 101A and 101B students who had completed both pre and post forms of the Course Opinion Survey and had received a final grade in the course. This writer then formulated hypotheses based upon students' observations and opinion survey results over a period of years. These hypotheses were tested through statistical analyses, and conclusions were drawn concerning them. The follow­ ing is a listing of the maj or findings of the study. 1. Although the number varied with the individual survey items and y e a r s , students in the experimental groups requiring pairing numbered approximately 400 in both 1972 and 1974. 2. In the pre survey results for both 1972 and 1974, students' attitudes toward the course and their expectations of course experience were significantly related. In pre survey results for 1972, the grades students expected to earn were significantly correlated with their perceptions of their own academic strengths and weaknesses, and in 1974 their vision of their future 98 at M.S.U. was related to their satisfaction with the uni­ versity. Only combined 1972 and 1974 pre survey results produced a relationship between students* attitudes toward the course and the grade they expected to earn. 3. Post survey results in 1972 and 1974 and in these years combined produced more similar relationships than pre results, and again they appeared to be logical ones. In all three time periods, students' attitudes toward the course were significantly related to their assessment of what the course had been like, and the grades they expected to earn were consistently higher than their final course grades. Only in post 1972 results was there a relationship between students1 assessment of their future at M.S.U. and their satis­ faction with the institution. 4. There were no significant relationships between pre and post versions of all variables for either year or for year combinations. 5. For both 1972 and 19 74, the two variables having a significant effect upon the final course grade were Expected Grade and Attitude toward the Course. Of these two, only Expected Grade accounted for a relatively large percentage of the final grade: 1974 and 31.76 percent in 1972. 41.46 percent in Attitude toward the Course was responsible for only 6.36 percent of the variance in grade in 1974 and .51 percent in 1972. 99 6. Very close to the previous two variables, but not unmistakably significant, were Academic Self Concept in 1972 and Assessment of the Course Experience in 1974. These and the previous two variables became the categories for comparing 1972 with 1974. 7. There was a significant difference between year groups and between the differences in pre and post results for all four variables, indicating true group differences beyond individual variations. 8. With the exception of Attitude toward the Course, there was a significant interaction between year groups and the differences between pre and post for all variables. 9. Attitudes toward the course, students* aca­ demic self-concept, and assessment of the course exper­ ience were higher in both pre and post responses in 1974 than in 1972. 10. Both pre and post expected grades were higher in 1972 than in 1974. 11. The difference was greater between pre and post attitudes toward the course, expected grades, and students' academic self-concept in the year 1972 than the year 1974; but there was a greater pre and post dif­ ference for assessment of the course experience in 1974 than in 1972. 100 12. Pre scores were higher than post scores for all variables, with the exception of Academic Self-Concept in which post scores were higher than pre. Conclusions In a study investigating a specific group over a period of time, the researcher must resist the temptation to draw conclusions that claim universality for the work and must avoid over generalization. After careful analy­ sis of the results of the study, however, the author reached the following conclusions: 1. Contrary to the original assumptions of developmental English teachers, college adjustment factors do not appear to influence course grade in any meaningful way, at least as measured by the research instrument of this study. Since students may have dif­ ficulty expressing their feelings about complex adjust­ ments on an impersonal objective instrument, interviews or teachers' observations might have produced more defini­ tive results. This conclusion seems to agree with Will- sey's assumption that the impact of academic environment is greater upon behavior than upon academic performance. 2. General attitude toward the course influences course grade very moderately, and this seems to be true for various year groups. Therefore the strong initial concerns of Comprehensive English teachers about negative student attitudes toward required developmental English 101 courses and their effect upon student progress may be misplaced if attached to course success only. Although the conclusion seems to support partially Bender's assumption that attitudes are related to final grades, these are specialized attitudes, not the generalized ones found in other studies; therefore, the comparison may not be valid. 3. Students' attitudes toward their course influence what they expect their course to be like and, upon completion, what they believe it was like. Given this relationship, since students' attitudes toward the course seem to influence their final grades slightly, their assessment of their course experience can be assumed to influence grade very slightly. 4. Students' estimations of the grades they expect to earn are related to their assessment of their own academic preparation. If course grade is a part of course achievement, then, students' confidence in their preparation may have a very slight influence upon course grade. 5. Because students’ assessment of their course experience was perhaps minutely responsible for some of the variance in final grade during one year, students' assessments of their experiences in the course may some­ times influence course achievement in a very limited way. 102 6. Because students’ assessments of their aca­ demic capabilities were perhaps minutely responsible for differences in course grade one year, it is conceivable that how students perceive their preparation may, under some circumstances, very slightly influence achievement in the course. 7. The grades students expect to receive in the course influence final grades more than all other variables combined. 8. Students' attitudes toward the course seem to become slightly less favorable as a term progresses. 9. As a term progresses, students' expectations concerning their grades go down slightly. 10. Students' assessments of their course exper­ iences become slightly less positive as time passes. 11. Regardless of the progression of other factors, students' academic self-concept seems to improve with time. 12. Results cannot be expected to remain static from year to year or from the beginning of a term to the end. Implications A number of implications are suggested by the conclusions. 1. They are the following: If college adjustment, as measured by the research instrument, does not affect course grade directly, perhaps it does affect grade when it influences behavior. 103 For instance, a developmental English student who wants to succeed may ask for tutorial help and then fail to keep tutoring appointments simply because he is too over­ whelmed by the complexities of life to spend one addi­ tional hour. He fails to take advantage of his oppor­ tunities for help and thus fails to improve his grade. For this student and many others, sympathetic instruction should be regulated by structured activities. It appears logical that completely unstructured skills programs might be less successful than structured ones. 2. If attitudes toward courses influence course success only moderately, as indicated by the results of this study, then these findings partially contradict the opinions of most Comprehensive English teachers over the years and the findings of such investigators as Williams and Dabbs. The truth is that most educators are concerned about students1 attitudes, probably because they perceive them to be indicators of assessment of their teaching abilities. concerns about students' In this situation teachers' attitudes toward courses are probably more defensive than noble. 3. If students' attitudes toward their courses and their expectations of their course experiences influence their grades in only minute ways, teachers must concentrate upon more productive factors. Although all teachers should perpetually foster rapport with 104 students, this activity must not exist for itself alone but must enhance both the mastery of course content and the continuous development of needed skills. 4. If students' expectations about the course slightly affect course achievement, it is very vital that those expectations be realistic. Too often students and other professors expect developmental English courses to be magic wands waiving away all the students' deficiencies. Since the mere completion of a ten-week skills course will not make students polished writers or logical thinkers, and since many developmental students merely require more time than others, a system building in pro­ gression based on achievement and sufficient time to com­ plete the process is undoubtedly necessary. Contrary to common assumption, skills development is rarely completed in one developmental course. 5. Since students' assessments of their academic capabilities may have some limited effect on achievement, it is vital that they view their strengths and weaknesses realistically. Because high school grades have sometimes been inflated, as have been college grades, students often expect better grades than they receive, or expect higher grades for sheer effort than for the quality of course work. Developmental English teachers in particular must care enough about students to differentiate between effort and achievement. 105 6. If students' assessments of their capabili­ ties are often not accurate, apparently their grade expectations are also faulty since the most significant correlation in this study. Expected Course Grade versus Final Course Grade, is always a negative one. Considering the kinds of grades most high school students receive, it is not surprising that their expectations are often unrealistically high. Worth remembering, however, is the fact that as expectations go up, final grades are more likely to fall short of expectations. Also a stu­ dent who expects to earn less may work particularly hard and find his grade higher than he had expected. In addition, a student whose high expectations are unrealis­ tic may rest on his laurels until his first theme grades jolt him into action. Teachers must help students recog­ nize where each must start, convince him that having more deficiencies to correct than some others is neither a disgrace nor an indication of lack of intelligence. In addition, each teacher must truly accept each student where he is in order to help him get where he needs to go academically. 7. Students' attitudes, their grade expectations, and their assessments of course experiences seem to weaken as the quarter progresses, although the degree varies from year to year. surprising, however. None of these changes are Because most freshmen have not 106 experienced developmental courses before, they often misjudge the amount of work necessary in skills develop­ ment and the complexity of the tasks. When they begin to see identifiable results, however, their academic self-concepts seem destined to improve. Even if stu­ dents' grade expectations are more realistic, and thus less optimistic, their confidence in their own capabili­ ties is bound to improve with increased mastery of desired skills. 8. None of these implications, however, recognize the fact that the variables investigated in this study account for less than 50 percent of the variance in the grade. Although the identity of other possible factors is speculative, a number may be likely candidates. a. Influence of the Teacher; Because Comprehen­ sive English classes are small, teachers have repeated opportunities to influence course characteristics, students' experiences in the course, and academic achievement. b. Influence of Student Characteristics: Although the description of the composition of the Comprehensive English group as it affected program development is found in Chapter I, this study did not pursue possible relationships between racial or ethnic back­ ground or sex and either attitudes or 107 achievement because that information was not available generally as early as 1972 and had not been included in the 1972 instrument. c. Effects of the Maturation Process: Although initial preparation undoubtedly affects initial circumstances, some of the positive changes in students seem merely to result from an increase in maturity. d. Effects of Personal and Family Problems: Although the instrument used in this study included general questions concerning college adjustment, it did not touch upon those problems affecting their daily lives most, the personal and family problems that teachers often feel limit their progress. e. Possible Relationships between High School English Grades and College English Achieve­ ment : Questionnaires inquiring about high school English achievement might be adminis­ tered to all Comprehensive English students. Recommendations Ideally, meaningful research should lead to curiosity about new questions not answered in the current study. Considering the four seemingly relevant factors 108 not investigated in the present analysis, this writer makes the following recommendations for future research: 1. The study should be replicated using a revised survey instrument including more definitive college adjustment questions and additional, more spe­ cific attitudinal questions. 2. In addition, the new analysis should include investigations of possible relationships between atti­ tudes toward high school English courses, accuracy of orientation testing, and attitudes toward the college developmental course. 3. In all future studies, investigation of atti­ tudes should include interviews and other subjective assessments. 4. Investigators might consider the following new studies not covered by the present instrument. a. Influence of the teacher upon the student*s total course experience: This study should probably include both questionnaires and interviews with students concerning suppor­ tive teacher characteristics, interesting and productive teaching strategies, and a general assessment of ways in which the teacher influenced students most. Although this study would fill a void not covered by 109 the present research, it might be too sensi­ tive an area to research comfortably. b. Influence of student characteristics upon both student adjustment and academic success: This study would probably match a variety of student characteristics with the factors investigated in the present study, plus the items suggested in Recommendation 2. Since social and ethnic designations are much more available in 1976 than in 1972, these relation­ ships would now be more easy to investigate. Since the consciousness raising period of the 1960s is now history, however, it is doubtful if either students or faculty would give this sort of research any meaningful support unless needed for obtaining government funds. c. Influence of the maturation process: Since general research concerning the maturation process is plentiful, replication of existing studies using new research populations should be possible. d. Effects of personal and family problems: Since these problems seem to be more complex than can be investigated through questionnaire answers and, in a way, too sensitive to be 110 comfortably collected, information might be gleaned through interviews with both students and teachers. General information concerning personal adjustment might be obtained from psychology research and from counseling center general findings, meticulously respecting students' rights to privacy. Whatever the forms of research, its most valid purpose is to serve as the vehicle for determining the need for and the implementation cation. To of improvements in edu­ the degree that the ever-growing ranks of educationally disadvantaged college youth remain the step children in higher education, learning more about them and the institutions admitting them is as vital as creation of programs for them. Only through knowledge of their needs and the ramifications of various ways of meeting those needs can commitment become more than rhetoric, for without understanding and intelligent planning results are often far less prevalent than words. But the planning must be based upon more than mere knowledge of the problems typical of the various groups of college students labeled educationally disad­ vantaged, for this population changes as time passes. According to the definition used in this study, edu­ cationally disadvantaged students are marginally prepared, sometimes culturally different students, who evidence Ill potential but are poorly prepared to survive academically. As evidenced by the general decline in achievement test scores during the past few years, students from all walks of life are likely to be equally deficient in a variety of areas. Since many students lack the same skills, t he n , mere sociological knowledge and psychological understand­ ing of these students only set the stage for the real task, helping them acquire those skills. And here the responsibilities of language arts teachers and program planners are clear. They must accept students where they are and provide the instruction needed to carry them into the mainstream. They must help students come to grips with both written word and oral communication. They must view both reading and writing as thinking processes rather than mechanical exercises. They must aid students in developing the ability to think both objectively and subjectively, to reason logically, to state their theses clearly and develop them specifi­ cally, to write well-structured sentences and paragraphs using a variety of words. They must constantly endeavor to make English and related subjects vital, exciting, and worthy of students* best efforts. Above all, educators must investigate more thoroughly how skills are learned and retained, for neither teachers' nor students' concerns expectations of success can create instant 112 achievement. The unanswered questions suggested by the results of this study illustrate the complexity of the task. APPENDICES APPENDIX A RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX A RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ATL 101 PRE-COURSE OPINION SURVEY Name______________________ Student Number___________ (Circle:) ATL 101A ATL 10IB The following questions ask you how you feel towards ATL 101 as you begin the course. Please answer them as accurately as you can. DIRECTIONS: 1. Why are you taking ATL 101? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 2. Fill out all of the spaces on the top of the answer sheet, including your name, student number, course, sex and term. Then answer the questions below. Please mark your responses in the right space on the answer sheet. Make only one response to each question. I was placed in the course at Academic Orientation because of my test scores. My academic advisor recommended it. A friend recommended it. My R.A. recommended it. My tutor recommended it. I chose the course on my own. Other reasons than the above. As you begin ATL 101, what is your general attitude toward taking this course? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Exceptionally favorable (enthusiastic) Very favorable Favorable Probably favorable Neutral, no feelings one way or the other Probably negative Negative Very negative Exceptionally negative (disgusted) 113 114 Below are listed some skills you can learn in ATL 101. Using the following K E Y , mark how much you think you need to improve in each of the following skills. KEY: 1. 2. 3. 4. Very much improvement Definite improvement Some improvement No improvement needed in this area. 3. Theme writing 4. Vocabulary development 5. Reading comprehension 6. Grammar and language skill 7. Logical and orderly thought 8. Study skills 9. What kind of work do you expect to do in ATL 101? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. What grade do you expect to earn in ATL 101? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 11. Excellent Very good About average Somewhat below average Much below average 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 In the past, what has been your general attitude toward English? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Exceptionally favorable (enthusiastic) Very favorable Favorable Probably favorable Neutral, no feelings one way or the other Probably negative Negative Very negative Exceptionally negative (disgusted) 115 12. Which English grade is the one you earned most often in the past? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 13. How many high school English courses did you take? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 14. No courses taken One Two Three Four Five or more How accurately do you think your orientation and col­ lege entrance examination scores indicate your abili­ ties in the areas tested? 1. 2. 3. 4. 16. One Two Three Four Five or more How many high school science courses did you take? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 15. A (4.0) B+ (3.5) B (3.0) C+ (2.5) C (2.0) D+ (1.5) D (1.0) F (0.0) Very accurately Fairly accurately To a slight degree Very poorly or not at all accurately How accurately do you think your high school record indicates your academic proficiency? 1. 2. 3. 4. Very accurately Quite accurately with a few exceptions Fairly well but with several exceptions Not at all accurately Items 17 to 21 ask you to describe what you expect ATL 101 to be like for you. FOR ME, ATL 101 WILL BE 116 17. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very efficient somewhat efficient. neither efficient nor inefficient. somewhat inefficient. very inefficient. 18. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very meaningful. somewhat meaningful. neither meaningful nor meaningless somewhat meaningless. very meaningless. 19. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very boring. somewhat boring. neither boring nor interesting. somewhat interesting. very interesting. 20 . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very worthless. somewhat worthless. neither worthless nor valuable. somewhat valuable. very valuable. 21 . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very necessary. somewhat necessary. neither necessary nor unnecessary. somewhat unnecessary. very unnecessary. Some of you will use the Reading Laboratory in the Learning Resources Center either with your class or on your own. In items 22-26 indicate what you think the Reading Labora­ tory will be like. FOR ME, THE L.R.C. READING LABORATORY WILL BE 22. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very efficient, somewhat efficient. neither efficient nor inefficient. somewhat inefficient, very inefficient. 23. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very worthless, somewhat worthless. neither worthless nor valuable. somewhat valuable. very valuable. 24. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very necessary, somewhat necessary. neither necessary nor unnecessary. somewhat unnecessary, very unnecessary. 117 25 . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very personal. somewhat personal. neither personal nor impersonal. somewhat impersonal. very impersonal. 26. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very unpleasant. somewhat unpleasant. neither unpleasant nor pleasant. somewhat pleasant. very pleasant. The following questions give you the opportunity to say how you feel about yourself at Michigan State at the start of this term. 27. My feelings about my future at Michigan State are____ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2 8. At th i s momen t I am 1. 2. 3. 29. glad I came here. not sure if coming here was the right thing to do, sorry I came here. With respect to my academic strengths and weaknesses at this time______________ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 30. really great. pretty good. mixed— hard to say. not very good. pretty discouraging. I I I I I am sure I know myself and what I can do. think I know myself and what I can do. d o n 't know if I know myself and what X can do. think I do not know, myself and what I can do. know I do not know myself and what I can do. I think my social life at Michigan State this term will be 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. bad, would like much more. not too bad, but could be better. good, the "right" amount. not too bad, but could be worse. bad, too much for me to handle everything. 118 POST-COURSE OPINION SURVEY Name_________________________ Student Number______________ (Circle:) ATL 101A ATL 10IB When you began ATL 101, you were asked to say what you thought the course would be like. Now you have almost finished ATL 101, and we would like to know what the course actually was like for you. Please answer the following questions as accurately as you can. DIRECTIONS: 1. Fill out all of the spaces on the top of the answer sheet, including your name, student number, course, sex and term. Then answer the questions below. Please mark your responses in the right space on the answer sheet. Make only one response to each question. Outside of the time you spent in the classroom, where did you get the most help for ATL 101? 1. 2. 3. ATL Lab tutors in the Learning Resources Center Other tutor(s) (not in LRC) A roommate or friend in ATL 101, or who has had ATL 101 4. A roommate or friend who never took ATL 101 5. Teacher 6 . Some other person 7. I did not seek any help outside the classroom. 2. Now that you have almost completed the course, what is your general attitude toward ATL 101? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Exceptionally favorable (enthusiastic) Very favorable Favorable Probably favorable Neutral, no feelings one way or the other Probably negative Negative Very negative Exceptionally negative (disgusted) * * * * * * * 119 Items 3-8. Using the following k e y , mark on your answer sheet how much you think you improved in each of the following skills because of ATL 101. KEY: 1. 2. 3. 4. Very much improvement Definite improvement Some improvement No improvement 3. 4. Theme writing Vocabulary development 5. Reading comprehension (ability to clearly understand what you read) 6. Grammar and language skills 7. Logical and orderly thought 8. Study skills * 9. * * * A * What kind of work do you think you did in ATL 101? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. * Excellent Very good Above average Somewhat below average Much below average About what grade do you think you should receive for your work in ATL 101? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 8 0.0 . * Items 11-15. * * * * * * What was ATL 101 actually like for you? For me, ATL 101 was 120 11. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very efficient. somewhat efficient. neither efficient nor inefficient. somewhat inefficient. very inefficient. 12. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. very meaningful. somewhat meaningful. neither meaningful nor meaningless. somewhat meaningless. very meaningless. 13. 1. very boring. 2 . somewhat boring. 3. neither boring nor interesting. 4. somewhat interesting. 5. very interesting. 14. 1. very worthless. 2 . somewhat worthless. 3. neither worthless nor valuable. 4. somewhat valuable. 5. very valuable. 15. 1. very necessary. 2 . somewhat necessary. 3. neither necessary nor unnecessary. 4. somewhat unnecessary. 5. very unnecessary. * 16. * * * * * * How helpful were the ATL Writing Tutors in the LHC? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Very helpful Somewhat helpful Neither helpful nor unhelpful Somewhat unhelpful No help at all I didn't use the Writing Tutors at all Items 17-26. Some students used the Reading Laboratory in the Learning Resources Center. Please give us your personal reactions to the Reading Laboratory. 17. I believe my laboratory participation made a major contribution to my reading improvement. 1. 2. 3. 4. Yes I d o n 11 know No I did not use the reading laboratory (Skip to Item 27"J 121 Items 18-26 FOR ME, THE L.R.C. READING LABORATORY WAS 18. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5, 19 . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 20. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 21. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 22. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 23. very worthless. somewhat worthless. neither worthless nor valuable. somewhat valuable. very valuable. very necessary. somewhat necessary. neither necessary nor unnecessary somewhat unnecessary. very unnecessary. very personal. somewhat personal. neither personal nor impersonal. somewhat impersonal. very impersonal. very unpleasant. somewhat unpleasant. neither unpleasant nor pleasant. somewhat pleasant. very pleasant. Indicate what time during the quarter you took your LRC Reading Laboratory program. 1. 2. 3. 24. very efficient. somewhat efficient. neither efficient nor inefficient somewhat inefficient. very inefficient. The first three weeks of class The second three weeks of class The third three weeks of class All things considered, how helpful to you was the time of the term that you took your lab program? 1. 2. 3. 4. Really great, the program came at just the right time for me. Good, the program was about the right time for me. Neutral, the program could have come at any time for me. Not so good, the program could have come at a better time for me. 122 5. Really bad, the program definitely should have been at a different time for me. 6 . Terrible, the program couldn't be placed at a good time for me. 25. If you had your choice, indicate the time of the term you think would have been best for you to take the lab program. 1. 2. 3. 26. The first three weeks of class The second three weeks of class The t h i r d three weeks of class I plan to continue using the LRC reading lab next term 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Definitely, on a regular basis Probably, but not on a scheduled basis Perhaps I will occasionally Doubtful that I will Definitely will not use it * * * * * * * The following questions give you the opportunity to say how you feel about all of your experiences so far at MSU. 27. My feelings about m ^ future at Michigan State are_____ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 28. really great. pretty good. mixed— hard to say. not very g o o d . pretty discouraging. Now that I have been at Michigan State for a term I am_______________ 1. glad I came here. 2 . not sure if coming here was the right thing to do. 3. sorry I came here. 29. With respect to my academic strengths and weaknesses, I find that since I have been at Michigan State 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I am sure I know myself and what I can do better. X think I know myself and what I can do better. I d o n 11 know myself and what X can do any better than I did before. I d o n 11 know myself and what I can do as well as I did before. I d o n 11 know myself and what I can do nearly as well as I did before. 123 30. The work I had to do in other courses this term 1. 2. 3. 31. helped me want to do well in ATL 101. had little to do with how well I wanted to do in ATL 101. interferred with how well I wanted to do in ATL 101 . My social life at Michigan State this term was_____ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. bad, would have liked much more. not too bad, but could have been better. good, the "right" amount. not too bad, but could have been worse. bad, too much for me to handle everything. APPENDIX B ALL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS APPENDIX B ALL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 1974 Correlation Coefficients Pre x Pre Attitude toward Course Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Expected Grade Expected Grade Expectation of Course Experience Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Expectation of Course Experience Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Attitude toward Course Expectation of Course Experience Attitude toward Course Satisfaction with M.S.U. Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Academic Self-Concept Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Academic Self-Concept Expectation of Course Experience Satisfaction with M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept .5005 .3192 .3070 Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept Satisfaction with M.S.U. .2066 .1769 Satisfaction with M.S.U. Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Expectation of Social Life Expectation of Social Life Expectation of Social Life Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Social Life Expected Grade Expectation of Course Experience Expectation of Course Experience Academic Self-Concept Expectation of Social Life 12 4 .5088 .2637 .1583 .1550 -.1216 -.1194 -.1188 .1109 .1100 -.0818 -.0807 .0454 .0363 .0327 .0214 -.0050 125 1974 Correlation Coefficients Post x Post Attitude toward Course Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Attitude toward Course Satisfaction with M.S.U. Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Assessment of Course Experience Assessment of Course Experience Assessment of Course Experience Satisfaction with M.S.U. Attitude toward Course Assessment of Course Attitude toward Course Attitude Academic Attitude Expected Expected Expected toward Course Self-Concept toward Course Grade Grade Grade Assessment of Course Experience Satisfaction with M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept .6549 .4284 .3828 Expected Grade Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Course Experience Academic Self-Concept Academic Self-Concept .2799 .1915 Satisfaction with M.S.U. .1172 Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Social Life Academic Self-Concept Satisfaction with M.S.U. .1309 .1236 .1232 .1166 -.0752 .0734 -.0619 .0611 .0506 -.0426 .0260 .0259 .0142 -.0081 1974 Correlation Coefficients Pre x Post Pre Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Attitude toward Course Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Post Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Assessment of Course Experience Satisfaction with M.S.U. .4465 .3492 .3248 .3243 .3110 126 Pre x P o s t — continued Pre Expectation of Course Experience Attitude toward Course Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept Expectation of Social Life Expected Grade Expectation of Course Experience Academic Self-Concept Satisfaction with M.S.U. Expected Grade Expected Grade Satisfaction with M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Expectation of Social Life Expectation of Social Life Expected Grade Expectation of Social Life Expectation of Social Life Expectation of Course Experience Satisfaction with M.S.U. Expected Grade Academic Self-Concept Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Expectation of Social Life Academic Self-Concept Academic Self-Concept Attitude toward Course Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Post Assessment of Course Experience Attitude toward Course Academic Self-Concept .3005 .2913 .2830 Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Social Life .2705 .2487 Expected Grade Attitude toward Course .2436 .2371 Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Course Experience Assessment of Course Experience Satisfaction with M.S.U. .2228 .2 204 .1670 .1640 -.1339 .1307 .1223 .1099 Attitude toward Course -.1085 Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Course Experience Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Attitude toward Course Satisfaction with M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Assessment of Social Life -.1059 Expected Grade -.0629 Attitude toward Course Assessment of Social Life Satisfaction with M.S.U. Expected Grade -.0565 -.1035 -.1000 .0973 .0880 .0819 .0746 -.0743 -.0545 .0503 .0497 127 Pre x P o s t — continued Pre Expectation of Course Experience Attitude toward Course Expectation of Course Experience Expectation of Social Life Expectation of Course Experience Academic Self-Concept Attitude toward Course Attitude toward Course Expected Grade Satisfaction with M.S.U, Expectation of Course Experience Academic Self-Concept Expected Grade Post Satisfaction with M.S.U. .0456 Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Expected Grade .0455 .0451 Academic Self-Concept .0407 Academic Self-Concept .0401 Assessment of Course Experience Expected Grade Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Course Experience Expected Grade Assessment of Social Life Expected Grade Attitude toward Course -.0388 .0381 -.0335 -.0322 .0293 -.0273 -.0226 -.0059 1974 Correlation Coefficients Pre x Final Course Grade Expected Grade Academic Self-Concept Satisfaction with M.S.U. Expectation of Social Life Expectation of Future at M.S.U. Expectation of Course Experience Attitude toward Course Final Final Final Final Grade Grade Grade Grade -.0880 .0574 -.0447 .0379 Final Grade -.0263 Final Grade -.0213 Final Grade .0079 Coefficients of Correlation Post— Final Grade Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Final Grade Final Grade Final Grade -.6825 -.2163 -.0502 12 8 P o s t — Final G r a d e — continued Assessment of Course Experience Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Social Life Satisfaction with M.S.U. Final Grade -.0459 Final Grade Final Grade Final Grade -.0456 -.0153 -.0090 1972 Correlation Coefficients Pre x Pre Attitude toward Course Expected Grade Expected Grade Attitude Expected Attitude Academic toward Course Grade toward Course Self-Concept Expectation of Course Experience Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Course Experience Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Course Experience .5616 .5515 .0297 .0266 .0266 .0014 -.0002 Correlation Coefficients Post x Post Attitude toward Course Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Attitude toward Course Assessment of Course Experience Attitude toward Course Expected Grade Assessment of Course Experience Attitude toward Course Attitude toward Course Assessment of Course Experience Satisfaction with M.S.U, Assessment of Course Experience Satisfaction with M.S.U. .7566 .5216 Academic Self-Concept .2916 Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept .1955 Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Social Life .1389 .0981 .0900 -.0862 -.0758 Assessment of Social Life -.0700 .1783 .1679 .1097 129 Post x P o s t— continued Expected Grade Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Attitude toward Course Expected Grade Assessment of Course Experience Expected Grade Expected Grade Academic Self-Concept Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Social Life Expected Grade Assessment of Course Experience Satisfaction with M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Assessment of Social Life .069 8 -.0647 -.0611 .0522 .0314 .0231 .0114 -.0057 1972 Correlation Coefficients Pre x Post Attitude toward Course Expectation of Course Experience Expected Grade Expectation of Course Experience Attitude toward Course Attitude toward Course Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Expected Grade Expectation of Course Experience Expected Grade Expectation of Course Experience Attitude toward Course Attitude toward Course Expected Grade Expected Grade Expectation of Course Experience Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Attitude toward Course Assessment of Course Experience Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Assessment of Course Experience Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U, Academic Self-Concept ,3649 ,2540 2296 ,2168 ,2071 ,1619 ,1412 ,1252 ,1100 ,1022 ,1006 0613 0541 Expected Grade Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Course Experience Assessment of Social Life Satisfaction with M.S.U, 0454 Attitude toward Course Satisfaction with M.S.U, 0365 0340 0496 0448 0439 130 Pre x P o s t — continued Expectation of Course Experience Expectation of Course Experience Expected Grade Assessment of Social Life -.016 3 . 0044 1972 Correlation Coefficients Pre x Final Course Grade Academic Self-Concept Expectation of Course Experience Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Final Grade Final Grade -.1342 .1186 Final Grade Final Grade .0437 .0370 1972 Correlation Coefficients Post x Final Course Grade Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Assessment of Course Experience Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept Final Grade Final Grade Final Grade -.5502 -.1227 .0632 Final Grade .0446 Final Grade -.0444 Final Grade Final Grade -.0271 .0172 Combined 1972-1974 Correlation Coefficients Pre x Pre Attitude toward Course Expected Grade Expectation of Course Experience Attitude toward Course Attitude toward Course Expected Grade Expectation of Course Experience Academic Self-Concept Academic Self-Concept Academic Self-Concept Expected Grade Expectation of Course Experience .5375 .2538 .0629 .0350 .0239 .0079 131 Combined 1972-1974 Correlation Coefficients Post x Post Attitude toward Course Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept Attitude toward Course Attitude toward Course Assessment of Course Experience Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Attitude toward Course Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Assessment of Course Experience Attitude toward Course Satisfaction with M.S.U. Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Expected Grade Assessment of Course Experience Academic Self-Concept Expected Grade Expected Grade Expected Grade Assessment of Course Experience Satisfaction with M.S.U. .7214 .4862 Academic Self-Concept .3334 Satisfaction with M.S.U. Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Expected Grade Academic Self-Concept .1952 Assessment of Course Experience Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Social Life Satisfaction with M.S.U. Assessment of Social Life Expected Grade Assessment of Course Experience Satisfaction with M.S.U. Assessment of Social Life Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Social Life Satisfaction with M.S.U. .1563 .1498 .1434 .1256 .1244 -.0940 -.0819 .0768 -.0762 .0681 .0654 .0628 -.0535 .0473 .0140 .0035 Combined 1972-1974 Correlation Coefficients Pre x Post Attitude toward Course Expectation of Course Experience Expected Grade Expectation of Course Experience Academic Self-Concept Academic Self-Concept Attitude toward Course Assessment of Course Experience Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept .3382 .2611 .2485 .2080 .2011 .1792 132 Pre x P o s t — continued Attitude toward Course Attitude toward Course Expected Grade Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Academic Self-Concept Expectation of Course Experience Expected Grade Academic Self-Concept Academic Self-Concept Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Expectation of Course Experience Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Academic Self-Concept Academic Self-Concept Attitude toward Course Expectation of Course Experience Expectation of Course Experience Expectation of Course Experience Expected Grade Assessment of Course Experience Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept Expected Grade Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Satisfaction with M.S.U. Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Social Life Assessment of Social Life Academic Self-Concept .1775 .1463 .1308 .1222 .1156 .1135 .0922 .0786 .0754 -.0622 -.0518 -.0501 .04 85 Assessment of Course Experience Satisfaction with M.S.U. Attitude toward Course Assessment of Course Experience Expected Grade Satisfaction with M.S.U. -.0246 -.0149 -.0143 Assessment of Social Life Expected Grade -.0092 .0060 Attitude toward Course -.0053 .0475 .0451 .0380 Combined 1972-1974 Correlation Coefficients Pre x Final Course Grade Expectation of Course Experience Expected Grade Academic Self-Concept Attitude toward Course Final Grade .0884 Final Grade Final Grade Final Grade -.0682 -.0435 .0282 133 Combined 1972-1974 Correlation Coefficients Post x Final Course Grade Expected Grade Attitude toward Course Assessment of Course Experience Assessment of Future at M.S.U. Academic Self-Concept Satisfaction with M.S.U. Assessment of Social Life Final Grade Final Grade Final Grade -.6154 -.1570 .0420 Final Grade -.0373 Final Grade Final Grade Final Grade .0296 -.0221 .0112 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Abbott, Joan. Student Life in Class Society. Permgamon Press, 1971. Oxford: Brookover, Wilbur B., and Erickson, Edsel L. Sociology of Education. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, 1975. Corbin, Richard. Literacy, Literature, and the Disad­ vantaged . Champaign, 1 1 1 . : National CounciX of Teachers of English, 1964. Feldman, Kenneth A . , and Newcomb, Theodore M. The Impact of College on Students. San Francisco: JosseyBass, Inc., 1969. Heckhausen, Heinz. The Anatomy of Achievement Motivation. New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1967. Henderson, Donald. "Some Necessary Changes in University Practices for Education of the Disadvantaged." In Higher Education for the Disadvantaged. East St. L o u i s : Southern Illinois University of Edwardsville, 1968. Lindgren, Henry Clay. The Psychology of College Success. New Y o r k : John Wiley and Sons, 1969. Moore, W. Jr. Against the O dds. Bass Publishers, 197 0. San Francisco: Jossey Roueche, John E., and Kirk, R. Wade. Catching U p : Remedial Education. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers, T974. Sarnoff, Irving, and Zimbardo, Philip G. "Anxiety, Fear, and Social Affiliation." In Current Research in Motivation. Edited by Ralph Norman Haber. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1976. 134 135 Skager, Rodney; Holland, John L . ; and Braskamp, Larry A. "Changes in Self Ratings and Life Goals Among Students in Colleges with Different Character­ istics." In College and Student Selected Read­ ings in the Social Psychology of Higher Education. Edited by Kenneth Feldman. New York: Maxwell House, 1972. Spielberger, Charles D. "The Effects of Manifest Anxiety on Academic Achievement of College Students." In Anxiety and Educational Achievement. Edited by Eric Gandrey and Charles Spielberger. Sidney: John Wiley and Sons Australasia Pty Ltd., 1971. Wallace, Walter S. Student Culture. Publishing Company , 1966. Chicago: Aldine Weingartner, Charles. "English for What?" In English and the Disadvantaged. Edited by Eward Fagan. Scranton, Penn.: International Textbook Company, 1967. Ya m amoto, Kaoree, ed. The College Student and His Culture: An Analysis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. Journals and Periodicals Astin, Alexander W. "Personal and Environmental Factors Associated with College Dropouts Among High Apti­ tude Students." Journal of Educational Psychology 53 (June 1965): 220-23. Atkinson, John, and Litwin, George H. "Achievement Motive and Test Anxiety Conceived as Motives to Approach Success and Motives to Avoid Failure." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 60 (January 1960): 52-63. Backner, Burton L . , and Beckernstein, Lewis. "A Survey of Disadvantaged Students1 Attitudes Towards a Special College Program." Journal of Human Resources 5 (Winter 1970): 117-27. Dabbs, L. "A Report on Remedial English." Junior Col­ lege Journal 27 (March 1957): 365-421. Davis, James. "Intellectual Climates in 135 American Colleges and Universities: A Study in Social Psychology." Sociology of Education 37 (Winter 1963): 110-28. 136 Goldman, Roy D . , and Hudson, David J. "A Multivariate Analysis of Academic Abilities and Strategies for Successful and Unsuccessful College Students in Different Major Fields." Journal of Edu­ cational Psychology 65 (1973)1 364-70. Hampton, Peter J. "Learning Needs of Academically Disadvantaged Students." Adolescence 9 (Winter 1974) : 555-63. Kendrick, S. A., and Thomas, C. L. "Transition from School to College.” Review of Educational Research, 1970. Kifer, Edward. "Relationships Between Academic Achieve­ ment and Personality Characteristics: A QuasiLongitudinal Study." American Educational Research Journal 12 (Spring 19 75): 191-210. Pfeifer, Michael J r . , and Sedlacek, William E. "Pre­ dicting Black Student Grades with Nonintellective Measures." The Journal of Negro Education 43 (Winter 1974): 71-76. Pruitt, Ann S. "Black Poor in White Colleges— Personal Growth Goals." Journal of College Student Per­ sonnel 11 (January 1970): 3-7. Dissertations and Dissertation Abstracts Alfred, Richard Lincoln. "The Relationship of College, Places of Residence, Pattern of Preference Group Identification and College Environmental Per­ ception." Dissertation Abstracts, 32, No. 10 (1972), 5507A. The Pennsylvania State University. Abell, William Russell. "A Comparison of Selected Char­ acteristics of Successful and Unsuccessful Stu­ dents in a Junior College Remedial Program." Dissertation Abstracts, 30, No. 8 (1970), 3284A. Wayne State University. Arechigan, Domingo. "Selected Programs for Marginal Students in Border Junior College Consortium." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 10 (1976), 5652A. Arizona State University. Aulston, Melvin Douglis. "Comparative Perceptions of Col­ lege Environment Between Minority-Group Freshmen and Minority-Group Entering Transfer Students." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 11 (1973), 6107A. The University of Connecticut. 137 Baugh, James Edward. "The Experiences of Black Students in a White University: Case Study of Partici­ pants in an Educational Opportunity Program." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 10 (1973), 5654A. The UniversXty of Wisconsin. Bender, Gary Franklin. "The Relationship Between Locus of Control, Self-Concept, Self-Actualization and Cognitive and Affective Outcomes of Instruction." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 9 (1973), 4886A. Purdue University. Britton, Ronald B. "Stability and Changes of Education Freshmen Personality Characteristics and Environ­ mental Perceptions." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 3 (1972), 1094AI University of Missouri— Columbia. Brown, Craig Stephen. "The Relationship Between PsychoSocial Factors and the Scholastic Achievement of College Students." Dissertation Abstracts, 34, No. 5 (1973), 2323A. Montana State University. Brown, Judy Earlene Cate. "A Study of Non-Classroom Individualized Instruction in Composition in Tennessee Colleges and Universities." Disser­ tation Abstracts, 33, No. 12 (1973), 6993A. The University of Tennessee. Chesin, Sorrell E. "The Differential Effects of Housing on College Freshmen." Dissertation Abstracts, 28, No. 5 (1967) , 1675A~ Michigan State University. Clark, Richard Owen. "Higher Education Programs for American Indians at Selected Southwestern Col­ leges and Universities." Dissertation Abstracts, 32, No. 10 (1972), 5562A. University oi: Southern California. Collymore, Raymond Quentin. "A Survey of the Educational Aspirations and Cultural Needs of the Negro and Mexican-American Students in Two Community Col­ leges in the State of Colorado." Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 11 (1971), 5654A7 University of Colorado. Cooper, Wilton Roy. "A Longitudinal Study of Character­ istics Associated with Attendance Persistence for Selected Groups of Students at Arizona State Uni­ versity." Dissertation Abstracts, 34, No. 9 (1974) , 5655A^ Arizona State University. 138 Cort, Charles Christopher. "Effects of Group Approach Emphasizing Student Development in the Academic Performance and Social Psychological Adjustment of High Risk College Freshmen." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 9 (1973), 4776A^ University of Georgia. Dare, LeRoy Joseph. "A Study of Remedial Programs in Public Two-Year Colleges." Dissertation Abstracts, 30, No. 9 (1970), 3896A. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Davis, Allen Jeffrey. "An Analysis of the Changes in the Freshman Year Experience at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1968-1973." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 11 (1973), 6408A. University of Massachusetts. Delaney, John F. "Change in Environmental Perceptions of College Freshmen as Related to Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement." Dissertation Abstracts, 31 No. 11 (1971) , 6188A. Rutgers University, The State University of New York. DeVecchio, Richard Charles. "Scholastic Aptitudes, Academic Motivation, Personality and Biographical Characteristics of Non-Returning and Returning Community College Freshmen." Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 9 (1971), 4371A. University of Virginia. Eanes III, Harvey. "Students' Rated Effective Responses to their College Environment." Dissertation Abstracts, 32, No. 1 (1971), 189AI University of Texas at Austin. Fair, Martha Harris. "Special Programs for Disadvantaged Students in Higher Education." Dissertation Abstracts, 34, No. 5 (1976), 2327A . Northern IllinoisUniversity. Faubion, John Hall. "Personality Change Among Edu­ cationally Disadvantaged Veterans as a Function in Enrollment in a Junior College Developmental Project." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 4 (1973), 1698A. University of Oklahoma. Federico, Joseph John. "The Effects of Voluntary and Forced Enrollment in a Study Skills Program on Academic Achievement and Attitudes of High Risk Community College Freshmen Men." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 4 (1972), 1457A~ Lehigh Uni­ versXty . 139 Gares, Charles Wayne. "Comparison of Existing and Idealized Perceptions of Afro-Americanr SpanishAmerican, Indian, and Caucasian Students Attend­ ing Eastern New Mexico University." Dissertation Abstracts, 30, No. 6 (1970), 2703A. University of Northern Colorado. Gibson, Jr., Baylor Price. "An Analysis of the Intel­ lectual-Social-Cultural Environment of a Complex Society." Dissertation Abstracts, 34, No. 6 (1973) , 30 87A. NorthweTsterh University. Greenwood, Charles Huddie. "Characteristics of Black Freshman Dropouts at Ball State University." Dissertation Abstracts, 32, No. 11 (1972), 6118A. Indiana University. Hammel, William Donald. "Predicting Multiple Criteria of College Success with Intellective and Nonintellective Predictors for New College Liberal Arts Freshmen at the University of Minnesota." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 12 (1973), 7043A. University of Minnesota. Havens, Janet M. "Relationship between Some Intellective Factors of Disadvantaged High Risk Students and Their Success in College." Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 11 (1971), 6201A. Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey. Hershey, David E. "An Analysis of the Academic Achieve­ ment and Progress of Students Admitted to Michigan State University Through the 'Summer Test Admit' Program of 1965-1969." Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 5 (1970), 2128A. Michigan State University. Hurd, Donald Eugene. "The Relationship of Affective Variables to College Achievement." Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 2 (1970), 5793A. Indiana University. Livingston, Frank Bryan. "Some Effects of Requiring Entering Students to Enroll in Developmental (Remedial) Programs at Florissant Valley Com­ munity College, Fall Semester, 19 70.' Disser­ tation Abstracts, 31, No. 9 (1971), 4376A. St. Louis University. Lovejoy, Delmar Franklin. "Assessment of a Remedial English Program for Academically Disadvantaged Young Adults in Western Christian College." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 10 (1973) , 5663A. Michigan State University. 140 Martin, Fredrick. Houston. "The High Risk Student and Developmental Education at Tennessee Community College." Dissertation Abstracts, 32, No. 11 (1972), 6129A. The University of Tennessee. Parker, Jr., William Carter. "An Evaluation of Compen­ satory Programs for High-Risk Students." Disser­ tation Abstracts, 32, No. 1 (1971), 302A. Indiana University. Rago, Jr., James J. "The Influence of Undergraduate Residence Upon Student Personnel Development." Dissertation Abstracts, 29, No. 11 (1969), 3798A. Case Western Reserve University. Rayburn, Wendell Gilbert. "An Analysis of the Aspiration, Motivation, and Academic Achievement Levels of Disadvantaged Students at the University of Detroit." Dissertation Abstracts, 32, No. 5 (1972) , 2134A. Wayne State University. Robinson, Lora Hnezda. "The Assessment of College Stu­ dent Morale." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 4 (1972), 1464A. University of California, Los Angeles. Rosen, Marilyn. "A Structured Classroom Writing Method: An Experiment in Teaching Rhetoric to Remedial English College Students." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 12 (1973), 7524A. NeV York University. Schultz, Philip M. "Compensatory Education at Wayne State University." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 8 (1973), 3926A. Wayne State University. Scott, Bernice Schneider. "The Adjustment of College Students from Disadvantaged Homes." Disser­ tation Abstracts, 28, No. 4 (1967), 1313A. Columbia University. Simpson, Franklin Jon. "Selected Aspects of the Develop­ mental Skills Program at Southern Illinois Uni­ versity, Carbondale, 1969-1974." Dissertation Abstracts, 36 (1974), 745A. Southern Illinois University. Snowden, Raymond. "A Critical Analysis and Appraisal of the Martin Luther King Developmental Program for Marginal Students at Western Michigan University." Dissertation Abstracts, 33, No. 5 (1972), 2137A. Michigan State University. 141 Wanko, George. "Level of Self-Actualization as It Relates to Expectations and Perceptions of the College Environment During the Freshman Year." Disser­ tation Abstracts, 36, No. 3 (1975) , 1338A. The Catholic University of America. Wellsey, Alan Douglas. "College Student Satisfaction and Academic Performance." Dissertation Abstracts, 31, No. 6 (1971), 3063A. State University of New York at Buffalo. Williams, Ann Smart. "The Syntactical Structure of Freshmen Students in a Developmental English Course Based on Selected Media and the Nature of Language." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Wilson, Anaise Victorianne. "A Study of the Relationship of Selected Factors to the Academic Achievement of College Freshmen in the School of Education of Tusk gee Institute." Dissertation Abstracts, 29, No. 1 (1968), 144A. New York University. Zucker, Alfred. "An Investigation of Factors Contributing to and Interfering with the Successful Achievement of Remedial English Objectives in Los Angeles City Junior Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1966. Government Publications Losak, John. "An Evaluation of Selected Aspects of a Junior College Remedial Reading-Writing Program." U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Unpublished Materials English I Task Force. "Credit/Grade Survey of Michigan Colleges." Dearborn: Henry Ford Community College, September, 1974. Eberly, Charles G. "Mean Grades of Comprehensive English Students Entering M.S.U. in Fall, 1972, 1973, and 1974, in Subsequent American Thought and Language Courses." East Lansing: Michigan State Uni­ versity, Fall, 1975. (Mimeographed.) Featherstone, Jane. "Course Objectives, Comprehensive English." East Lansing: Michigan State Uni­ versity, Fall, 19 74. (Mimeographed.) Johnson, Henry C. "Non-intellective Correlates with Reading for Black, White, and Special Program Freshmen at Michigan State University." (Mimeographed.) University College, Goals, Courses and Services. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1574.