UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Changes in student-teacher perceptions following a residential outdoor program Bateson, David J. 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A2 B38.pdf [ 6.03MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055278.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055278-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055278-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055278-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055278-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055278-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055278-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055278-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055278.ris

Full Text

CHANGES IN STUDENT-TEACHER PERCEPTIONS FOLLOWING  A RESIDENTIAL OUTDOOR PROGRAM  DAVID JOHN BATESON B.Ed., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1969 M . S c , P o r t l a n d S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1978  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF EDUCATION  in THE (Department  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES of Mathematics  We a c c e p t t h i s to  THE  and S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n )  thesis  the r e q u i r e d  as conforming standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH  COLUMBIA  May 1981 o  ©David  John  B a t e s o n , 1981  In p r e s e n t i n g  this thesis in partial  f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s for  s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be  department o r by h i s o r her  g r a n t e d by  the head o f  representatives.  my  It is  understood t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s for  f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not  be  allowed without my  permission.  David John Bateson  Department of  Mat.hpmatir<; anH  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date  DE-6  (2/79)  April  2 3 , 1981  Sripnrp  Columbia  FHnratirm  written  i i  ABSTRACT  Positive been  changes  postulated  Residential students'  be  Outdoor  Residential  one  of t h e i r of  the  This  relationships desirable  study  teachers  within  as w e l l  their  have  long  outcomes  of  examines  i n d i v i d u a l student  relationships  Outdoor  of  Programs.  perceptions  interpersonal  Program  to  perceptions  teachers'  A  in student-teacher  as  changes of changes  in  p e r s o n a l i t i e s and  classes  following  a  Program.  detailed  description  examined  i n the study  of the a c t u a l is  Residential  presented.  The  Outdoor  program  was /  evaluated  in  terms  of  predefined  criteria  program  effecting positive  Program  was j u d g e d t o have- met t h e s e  Using Pupi1  Residential  Outdoor  perceptions  of t h e i r  to students  Teachers provided Analysis. have  relationships.  Inventory, Program  personalities Although  no  changes,  the  this  their  found  in  a  t o have  positive  f o r Bales  information, perceptions the  commonalities individual  were  their  direction  when  Outdoor  Interaction  some  perception  in  shifts  Program Process  were  found t o  individual  student  Outdoor  Program.  Residential found  a  changed  the teachers of  in  i n such a program.  i n the R e s i d e n t i a l  required  following  from the Teacher  participating  who had n o t p a r t i c i p a t e d  the information  changed  were  participating  Using  students  teachers  The  criteria.  p r e - p r o g r a m and p o s t - p r o g r a m s c o r e s  Relat ionship  compared  student-teacher  for conducting^  these  perception  were documented  and  interpreted. Following  the R e s i d e n t i a l  Outdoor  Program,  i t was  inferred  that  the  teachers  within  the c l a s s e s  prior  to  and into  t h e main  the  interpersonal  t o be more u n i f i e d t h a n  the R e s i d e n t i a l  groups w i t h i n  Residential  perceived  had  been  O u t d o o r Program. I s o l a t e d  the c l a s s e s  were p e r c e i v e d  the  Walter  drawn  following  Program.  Dr.  case  individuals  t o have been  r e l a t i o n s h i p n e t w o r k s of t h e c l a s s e s  Outdoor  relationships  B.  Boldt  the  i v  TABLE OF  CONTENTS  Abstract . , L i s t of T a b l e s L i s t of F i g u r e s Acknowledgements  i i v vi viii  :  C h a p t e r I : The P r o b l e m i n i t s S e t t i n g General Problem H i s t o r i c a l C o n t e x t of t h e P r o b l e m T h e o r e t i c a l C o n t e x t of the Problem E x p e r i e n t i a l C o n t e x t of t h e P r o b l e m E d u c a t i o n a l C o n t e x t o f t h e P r o b l e m . .. S p e c i f i c P r o b l e m s of t h e S t u d y B a s i c Assumptions of the Study  1 1 2 5 11 14 18 19  Chapter  20  I I : Review  of R e l a t e d  Studies  Chapter I I I : Methodology of the Study S p e c i f i c Problems of the Study P o p u l a t i o n and Sample Treatment .... Instruments Interaction Process Analysis Teacher P u p i l R e l a t i o n s h i p Inventory D e s i g n of the Study S p e c i f i c Problem # 1 S p e c i f i c Problem # 2 S p e c i f i c Problem # 3  22 22 22 24 35 35 41 . 48 48 50 51  C h a p t e r IV: R e s u l t s o f t h e S t u d y S p e c i f i c Problem # 1 S p e c i f i c Problem # 2 S p e c i f i c Problem # 3  52 52 56 82  C h a p t e r V: C o n c l u s i o n s and Recommendations Conclusions L i m i t a t i o n s and Recommendations  87 87 88  References  92  Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix  A: B: C: D: E: F: G:  I n t e r p e r s o n a l R a t i n g s , Forms A, B and H i s t o r i c a l Items of t h e TPRI Teacher P u p i l R e l a t i o n s h i p Inventory E v a u a t i v e , C r i t e r i a o f Vogan Mini-Computer Program A d d i t i o n a l Methods o f A n a l y s i s A n a l y s i s of A d d i t o n a l Data  C •  97 103 106 107 112 115 121  V  • L I S T OF TABLES Table Table Table Table Table  3.1: 3.2: 3.3: 3.4: 4.1:  Table Table Table Table  4.2: 4.3: 4.4: 4.5:  Table  F.l:  Table  F.2:  P e r s o n n e l S t r u c t u r e of C a b i n G r o u p s P e r s o n n e l S t r u c t u r e of Study Groups C o m p o s i t i o n o f P i l o t G r o u p by Sex a n d Age C o m p o s i t i o n o f P i l o t G r o u p by Sex and G r a d e C l a s s Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e TPRI • A n a l y s i s of C o v a r i a n c e T a b l e I PA d a t a f o r C l a s s A I PA d a t a f o r C l a s s B Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s of S c o r e Changes f o r E a c h T e a c h e r on E a c h A x i s P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t Means f o r C l a s s e s and T r e a t m e n t C o n d i t i o n s Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f D i f f e r e n c e s Between E x p e c t e d and O b s e r v e d P o s t t e s t Scores  27 28 -45 45 53 54 56 57 58 116 119  vi  L I S T OF Figure Figure  1.1: 3.1:  Figure  4.1:  Figure  4.2:  Figure  4.3:  Figure  4.4:  Figure  4.5:  Figure  4.6:  Figure  4.7:  Figure  4.8:  Figure  4.9:  Figure  4.10:  Figure  4.11:  Figure  4.12:  Figure  4.13:  Figure  4.14:  Figure  4.15:  Figure  4.16:  Figure  4.17:  Figure  4.18:  Figure  4.19:  Figure  4.20:  Figure  4.21:  Figure  4.22:  Figure  4.23:  Figure  4.24:  FIGURES  Three Dimensional S p a t i a l Model of B a l e s G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of t h e A p p l i c a t i o n o f I PA D a t a t o Two S t u d e n t s G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A01 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A02 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A04 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A05 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A07 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A10 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A l l G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A12 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A14 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A15 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A16 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A17 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A19 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A21 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A22 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A23 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A26 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t *B02 % G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t B05 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t B06 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t B08 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t BIO G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t B12 G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Changes R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t B14  7 39 59 60 ..61 62 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 72 73 74 76 76 77 78 79 79  vi i  Figure  4.25:  Figure  4.26:  Figure  4.27:  Figure  4.28:  Figure  F.l:  Figure  G.l:  Figure  G.2:  P e r c e i v e d S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e of C l a s s A P r i o r t o the R e s i d e n t i a l Outdoor Program P e r c e i v e d S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e of C l a s s A F o l l o w i n g the R e s i d e n t i a l Outdoor Program P e r c e i v e d S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e of C l a s s B P r i o r t o the R e s i d e n t i a l Outdoor Program P e r c e i v e d S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e of C l a s s B F o l l o w i n g the R e s i d e n t i a l Outdoor Program R e p e a t e d i M e a s u r e s G r o u p s by O c c a s i o n s I n t e r a c t i o n and C l a s s e s w i t h i n G r o u p s by O c c a s i o n s I n t e r a c t i o n G r a d e 4's from C l a s s B Comapred t o t h e G r o u p by O c c a s i o n I n t e r a c t i o n S e c o n d and T h i r d T e s t i n g o f C l a s s C Compared t o t h e G r o u p by O c c a s i o n I n t e r a c t i o n  83 84 85 86 117 122 124  *"  vi i i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  Whenever a t a s k such people t o thank:  as t h i s  thesis  i s completed  t h e r e . a r e many  - My most h e l p f u l c o m m i t t e e : Bob C a r l i s l e , G a a l e n E r i c k s o n , Ray P e t e r s o n , most e s p e c i a l l y , W a l t e r Boldt/.  Bob C o n r y , a n d  - The p e o p l e who s t i m u l a t e d me t o t a k e t h i s c o u r s e o f a c t i o n : F r e d G o r n a l l , H a z e l H u c k v a l e , a n d My M o t h e r , W i n n i e . - The p e o p l e who a l l o w e d me t o c o n d u c t t h e s t u d y : D e l l e , Helen, Bruce, B a z i l , and the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t a f f and S c h o o l B o a r d T r u s t e e s o f Howe .Sound S c h o o l D i s t r i c t . - Without Larry -  the this  understanding o f Simon, B r i a n , J o h n , P e t e r a n d t a s k w o u l d have been much more d i f f i c u l t .  I t a l s o w o u l d n o t have been a r o u n d t o keep me h o n e s t .  much  fun  without  Todd  Rogers ^  - F i n a l l y , f o r b e i n g so p a t i e n t w i t h me, and even e n c o u r a g i n g me during my s e c o n d c h i l d h o o d , I owe my g r a t i t u d e t o my w i f e and p a r t n e r , L y n n e .  CHAPTER I THE  General  change  general in  presumed  problem  to take  place  outdoor  perceptions teacher  of  their  teachers  at live  students'  The and  rural together  In  to  as  intangible;  years.  include  for and  student  are  the  in  the  of  generally  changes  class.  where  situation  and  Factors  away time these  site:  unorganized;  from of  4  the "the  the  between  the  to  at  the least  sites  are  like. planned  tangible  ( K r e i g e r , 1970,  grades  and  "residential  c e n t r e s " and the  programs  students  " s c h o o l camps",  formal"  and  educational  t h a t happens at  w e l l as  students'  examined.  in practice  and  in  a the  personalities  sites  education  Grades c o n s i s t  students  subjects  teacher,  a p e r i o d of  schools",  organized  i n f o r m a l as  the  changes are  Programs  "wilderness  is  relationships  changes  within  i n a communal  "outdoor  the  Intermediate  with  individual  literature  study  grade  the  semi-rural  is everything  unplanned;  They  with  residences  the  centres",  program  or  this  p r o g r a m . More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  relationships  Outdoor  normal  days.  outdoor  intermediate  c o n t r i b u t i n g to these  conducted  referred  of  in  student-teacher  relationship  perceptions  Res i d e n t i a l  three  among  concerned  interpersonal  possibly  and  education  is primarily  the  SETTING  investigated  teacher-student  residential  in  ITS  Problem  The  study  PROBLEM IN  7  and  p.36). inclusive.  a g e s of  9 and  13  2  Historical The of to  Context  first  camping, have  the  others  wilderness  living of  no  by  "learn wits  with  programs  of  clean  the  approach  be  camps,  laboratories.  to  happily  and  stability  too,  of  began  survival  "conservation  field,  and  to  established  by  1 9 4 6 ) . T h i s camp,  and  the  traditions  the  skills  of  which  were  the  Round  Joseph  new  Camp  in  1823  s c h o o l camps  were e x p e c t e d  discover high take  Hill  Cogswell  the  of  The  care  1930's,  ideals,  of  or to  match  themselves"  of  the  residential  social field  function  skills,  "  and  were not *(live  (Curtis,  increasingly  together  and  early  were a d d e d  p r o g r a m s and t h e model  1950's  to a l l  the  became a m a j o r  t h a t many e m e r g i n g  1936), as  but  but  social  emphasis  successfully,  growth  (Sharman e t a l . , 1938,  Germany  health, morality  abandoned,  personality  outdoor  skills.  purposes of d e v e l o p i n g  1940*s  education"  outdoor  in  adjustment  maturity) the  the  leader  harmoniously)  During  to  development  former  "social  and  residential  a  The  wilderness  shifted  appears  participants  living,  learn  programs,  health,  o b j e c t i v e s of  p r o g r a m s . The  domain  camps.  with  and  the  p.471).  to  American  this  Bancroft  i n c l u d e d the  appeared  of.  into  was  on  agency  beginning  e l e m e n t s and  1936,  (Gibson,  improvement  George  outdoor  designed  social  camps  outdoor  the  With  in  and  standards  (Miller,  and  and  d a t e ) , were t h e  residential  public schools  System  f o l l o w e d , was  private  foundations  of  when Camp R o o s e v e l t  P u b l i c School  previous  (Mand,  venture  i n 1919  soon  established  Problem  thus -into r e s i d e n t i a l  occurred  that  the  formal  and  Chicago  of  (emotional  p.115). the prior  goals  of  aims  of  g o a l . The camps  leader  followed,  3  was  the  C l e a r L a k e Camp n e a r  Smith,  1974).  objectives subject  of  This  of  moral  and  areas  social decade  stated  by  of  a unique  classroom  the  of  a l l  of  the  area.  The  period  from  science  in  environment with p.71).  the  i n which  the  in  the  personality,  education through on  shift  1966).  classroom  p.14).  to content  the c l a s s "  program  curriculum  to  th&  "The  medium  and  thereby  challenging (Brown,  developed  outdoor  connotes and  conservation  continued  present programs and  to act  instruction immediate and  i s probably  has  the  by  fact these  be  the  a more  aspects  of  studies.  principle  about  that  the  natural  experience,  usually  ecology" due,  an  the  seen  on  1961,  into  to  environmental on  school  t o augment  were e n c o m p a s s e d  science  As  educators  school curriculum. Despite  c e n t r e s began  in focus  (Smith,  manageable,  of  residental  revitalizing  1961,  of e c o l o g i c a l  direct  of  experience  a meaning  outdoor  1965  areas  for  first-hand  residential  outdoor  emphasis This  of  outdoor  medium  programs,  subject  "outdoor  larger  members  traditional  outdoor  focus  and  particularly  for learning"  interesting,  residential  the  specific  (Elliot  included learnings in  development  (Freeburg,  many  dominant  Residential  the  using  more  for  areas  residential  the  Education...gives  p.3). Thus,  that  saw  learning"  applicable  extension  "In  are  makes s u b j e c t m a t t e r and  era  the p r e v i o u s h e a l t h ,  teaching  They  Outdoor  programs  "laboratories  Freeburg:  curriculum.  of an  s c h o o l s , most  with  1955-65  c e n t r e s as  found  beginning  outdoor  the  Creek, Michigan  d e v e l o p m e n t goals'.  outdoor  verbal  of  science, along  The  have  the  residential  matter  field  was  Battle  in  (Herbert, large  1966,  part,  to  4  the  "increasing  environmental certain focal  quality"  areas  of  British  outdoor  attention  (Smith,  1970,  Columbia are  today  survival  and  (Woodward, 1 9 7 3 ) . In  p.4).  "ways of making  their  environment"  important program, ranked  tenth  comprehensive conducted still  and the  i n 1975  place  a  personality  most common  Included  in  of  the  this  original  practicing  social list  the  most  are  interpersonal survey  g o a l s of  i s the  "help pupils  themselves,  their  t e a c h e r and  two  among  that  a better  the most  training  However, a  British  Columbia  outdoor  programs  development  1972  &  of  Worthing,  summarized  the  .programs.  residential  outdoor  understanding  their  total  clear  that,  d e s p i t e the  have  occurred  on  students"  o p e r a t i n g outdoor  statement  to develop  understand  (Bateson  in  teachers  the  the  moral,  of humans  1978).  in  on  ecological  teacher  residential  conducted  important  as  (Tufuor,  behavior  the  subordinate  impact  interaction  emphasis  as  residential  outdoor  education  programs  to  shift,  health,  objectives  outdoor  showed t h a t  list  that  to achieve  environment"  outdoor  p r o g r a m s can  1972,  an  same  of  1976). A nationwide eight  natural  considerable  and  given  centres.  "ways of h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s  the  study  skills  study,  "facilitating on  the  s t u d e n t s aware of  components while  With  outdoor  designed  while  social  one  listed  to conserve  being  i t would appear  primarily  conservation objectives,  need  now  s c i e n c e , became even more p r e d o m i n a n t  programs  personal,  education"  of  (Passmore,  p.14). It  of  and  school subject for r e s i d e n t i a l In  and  concern  seems r e a s o n a b l y  focal  residential  goals  which  outdoor  programs,  shifting-  d u r i n g the  personality  and  tide  evolution  of  interpersonal  5  behavior the of  goals  specific the  most  relationship this  type  continue  to pervade  o b j e c t i v e s based predominant between  on  the  programs.  these  goals  one  is  to  objectives  student  and  teacher.  I f one finds  Typical  examines that  improve  one the  o b j e c t i v e s of  are:  To p r o m o t e the d e v e l o p m e n t of social relations and individual responsibility through group living experiences, particularly in residential outdoor education, where there are unique o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r p l a n n i n g and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e camp community ( S m i t h e t a l . , 1972, p.31). Good r a p p o r t i s e s t a b l i s h e d between the teacher and the pupil - one t h a t makes g u i d a n c e more f u n c t i o n a l . Teachers gain new perceptions and knowledge of i n d i v i d u a l p u p i l s ( S m i t h , 1957, p.7). The situations which occur outdoors a l l o w f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n between s t u d e n t s , and between t e a c h e r and students in real l i f e s i t u a t i o n s . W i t h t h i s comes a greater appreciation of others (Ontario Teachers' F e d e r a t i o n , 1970, p.4). In the outdoor s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s the t e a c h e r i s i n a better position to establish genuine rapport with p a r t i c i p a t i n g s t u d e n t s ( M a j o r & C i s s e l , 1971, p.4). The  citations  development and  of  is  outcome of  Theoretical  the  literature  teacher-student  relationships  postulated  in  Context  an  and  of  the  behaviors postulates  psychological  i n g r o u p s has  and  outdoor  that  the  perceptions  pervasive  o b j e c t i v e and  programs.  Problem  A p s y c h o l o g i c a l model w h i c h individuals'  student-teacher  important  residential  make i t e v i d e n t  is  useful  for  understanding  characteristics  and  interpersonal  been d e v e l o p e d  by  Bales  (1970).  a:  Three dimensional s p a t i a l model w h i c h may be u s e d t o v i s u a l i z e and d e s c r i b e t h e p o s i t i o n s of participants in a group and to infer what t h e i r r e l a t i o n s a r e l i k e l y t o be ( B a l e s , 1970, p.vi).  Bales  6  The a x e s o f t h e model  are  labeled  "up-down",  negative"  and  "forward-backward".  are  used  f o r d i r e c t i o n a l c o n v e n i e n c e . The d i m e n s i o n s c a n ,  simply  however, be p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y been  located The  origin  within  model  a s shown  certain located  interpreted  identifies  26 key  directed  from  personality u UP UPF UF UNF UN UNB UB UPB P PF F NF N NB B PB DP DPF DF DNF DN DNB DB DPB D Ave-  directed states the  labels  individuals  intersection points  i n F i g . 1.1. T h e s e p o i n t s traits  presumed  a t , or i n the p r o x i m i t y  Bales  once  these  have  the space.  personality  with vectors  At t h i s p o i n t ,  "positive-  that  associated  to characterize  of, these  towards these  are  points  or  to  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that  the  the with  individuals associated  points.  i n d i v i d u a l s l y i n g on o r n e a r  origin  plus  intesection  a r e m o v i n g as  the  vectors  points  follows:  Toward m a t e r i a l s u c c e s s and power Toward s o c i a l s u c c e s s . Toward s o c i a l s o l i d a r i t y and p r o g r e s s Toward g r o u p l o y a l t y and cooperation Toward a u t o c r a t i c a u t h o r i t y Toward t o u g h - m i n d e d a s s e r t i v e n e s s Toward r u g g e d i n d i v i d u a l i s m and g r a t i f i c a t i o n Toward v a l u e - r e l a t i v i s m and expression Toward e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t i v e n e s s and warmth Toward e q u a l i t a r i a n i s m Toward a l t r u i s t i c l o v e Toward c o n s e r v a t i v e g r o u p b e l i e f s Toward v a l u e - d e t e r m i n e d r e s t r a i n t Toward i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c i s o l a t i o n i s m Toward r e j e c t i o n of s o c i a l c o n f o r m i t y Toward r e j e c t i o n of c o n s e r v a t i v e g r o u p b e l i e f Toward p e r m i s s i v e l i b e r a l i s m Toward t r u s t i n t h e g o o d n e s s o f o t h e r s Toward s a l v a t i o n t h r o u g h l o v e Toward s e l f - k n o w l e d g e and s u b j e c t i v i t y Toward s e l f - s a c r i f i c e f o r v a l u e s Toward r e j e c t i o n of s o c i a l s u c c e s s Toward f a i l u r e and w i t h d r a w a l Toward w i t h h o l d i n g of c o o p e r a t i o n Toward i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e u n d e r p r i v i l e g e d Toward d e v a l u a t i o n of the s e l f (origin) Towards a balanced average in a l l directions.  show  F i g u r e 1.1:  T h r e e D i m e n s i o n a l S p a t i a l Model o f B a l e s .  8  This factor  typology  analyses  instrument, other  al.,  1951). A l s o  overt  Sixteen  Process  detailed  Personality  Interpersonal  goes  on  dimensional  individuals,  of  t o use space,  as: &  and  group  is  Behavior  (Bales,  1970).  and  proximity  1951)  (Cattell  et  information statements  interaction.  traits  p o s i t i o n s of  Minnesota  value  these  the  several  The  a n a l y s i s was  after  developed  McKinley,  i n g r o u p s and  during,  extensive  and  Questionnaire  factor  individuals  before,  (IPA),  such  Factor  on  specially  (Hathaway  i n the  description  and  Bales  of  a  Analysis  Personality  behavior  i s based  using  instruments  included  individuals  three  obtained  P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory  The  more  scores  psychological  and  by  of  personality traits  Interaction  Multiphasic  on  of  given  individuals measures  in  A in  the  between  to:  1. O b t a i n a c o n c e p t i o n of t h e most p r o b a b l e c o a l i t i o n s among s u b g r o u p s of members; 2. Locate p o t e n t i a l l e a d e r s and s t r a t e g i c a l l y - p l a c e d persons i n these c o a l i t i o n s ; 3. L o c a t e p r o b a b l e isolates; 4. Form estimates of the likelihood that the coalitions will l i n k up w i t h e a c h o t h e r t o f o r m more powerful subgroups; 5. L o c a t e who a r e t h e s t r a t e g i c a l l y - p l a c e d p e r s o n s to make t h e s e l i n k a g e s ; and so on for many s i m i l a r problems ( B a l e s , 1970, p. 3 4 ) . Bales  argues  that  individuals  within  this  space  have:  A strong pervasive tendency to direct their communication upward ,as i f t h e y were s e e k i n g s t a t u s f o r t h e i r i d e a s and values, i f not for themselves ( B a l e s , 1970, p.36). The  members of  coalitions close  or  even  proximity  Individuals  may  any  group t h e r e f o r e tend  unconscious but  higher  also link  relationships i n the  to  form  with  power d i r e c t i o n  themselves with  alliances, members  in  (upwards).  members l o w e r  in  the  9  power  direction  for  network o f c o a l i t i o n s contends unless  that an  these  the  of support.  i s formed w i t h i n  links will  individual  proximity,  purposes  has  " i n which case  the group. B a l e s  continue  no o t h e r  the given  I n t h i s way, a  t o form w i t h i n  individual  person  further the group  in close  will  remain  enough  either  an  /  individual of  a  network  1970,  model  constantly  change, altered the  and  further  i s dynamic  as  downward l i n k e d  as i n d i v i d u a l s  also  points  is  often  out that  individuals  their  the r o l e  his position  determined  by  members.  factors  plays  Two  o t h e r major  are basic  experience. role  change  At  personality  (Bales,  a r e seen  and  status  roles  within  t h e same t i m e ,  been w i t n e s s e d  in situation  spatial  position  in  the  group  the  behavior  of o t h e r  group  individual  by  influencing  a change  of  can a l t e r  the  t o a new o r d i f f e r e n t i n the group space  of  or her p o s i t i o n  the o r i g i n a l  location  and  behavior.  factors  situation,  a person  This  This  Since  contributing  i t  follows  where an  of  change  programs.  can r e s u l t  alteration  life  c a n change  the  that  to a  individual's in  a  i n t h e o r i g i n a l g r o u p s p a c e upon  situation.  group  previous  in situation  individual,  i s altered,  other  the r o l e  i n r e s i d e n t i a l outdoor  or r o l e  plays in  or  and h i s o v e r t  position his  the  an i n d i v i d u a l  characteristics  of the i n d i v i d u a l  often  diversion  to  t o him"  situations  change  of  the  that  the space as  members and t h e e v a l u a t i o n  a  member  group.  space,  has  upper  time p r o g r e s s e s . Networks of r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e  group, and t h e r e f o r e  the  the terminating  i n the sense  moving w i t h i n  or r e p l a c e d  Bales a  of those  remain  p.37). The  as  i s o l a t e , or w i l l  change return  individual's  10  position  in  therefore group. an  In  the alter  the  the  This  behavior  for  estimating and in  the  both  interpersonal A  coalitions  interactions phenomenon of  interaction  p r o g r a m s has  model  in  often  can  overt  the  been  A  by  series  the  formed  and  within  the  change  .in  classroom noted  of  and  a  by  theoretical  characteristics  relations  in a  graphical  depictions  model,  amount  s e r v e as  personality  interpersonal  the  recorded the  group at  any  of  the  over  time,  can  of  changes  in  nature  relationships.  theoretical  relationship  that  teacher  be  can  relationships  basis  for  should  describing exist  found  in  the  between  studies  extensive  determine  whether  relationships  studies there  a  w h i c h were most and  The  results  the  support  the  student  ideal and  the  Heine  (1950)  psychotherapists on  that  to  therapist-client  conducive  notion  the  therapist-patient  consensus least  of  (1950) and  with p r a c t i c i n g was  nature  on  in psychotherapy. F i e d l e r  conducted  therapy.  of  the  group  the  time.  space d e s c r i b e d  display  and  three-dimensional  point  group  education,  the  teachers.  individuals  given  of  alter  network  r e s i d e n t i a l outdoor  participating  construct  entire  context  individual's  following  of  group space w i l l  to  successful  there  i s an  ideal  strong  case,  based  relationship. Lewis, on  the  Wigel  works of (1964),  parallel by  Lovell  Heine  the  identification  Jesse  Fiedler that  ideal  and  and  an  (1950), Rogers ideal  the  The  and  and  Lewis  relationship  relationship  argument  necessary  a  (1957),  student-teacher  therapist-client  Fiedler. of  (1965) p r e s e n t  rests  on  sufficient  as  and  should  identified  Rogers'  (1957)  psychological  11  conditions  for  interacting  individuals.  recognized  the  constructed  a  student  relationship.  ideal  to typify  indicators been  evidence  presents  perceptions ideal  a  Lewis  that  of a p o s i t i v e  provided  by  list  et  3.  Experiential Since  Context  et  also They  by  the  student-teacher of  behavioral  a l . , and  K n o b l o c k and of  the  b e h a v i o r a l statements  are  indicative  outdoor  Columbia,  outdoor  education  for  a  in  positive perceptions  growth  of  be in  programs,  under  As a  the  director  i»n B r i t i s h  an a c t i v e  part  stages  of h i s t o r i c a l  s e c t i o n , from  predominantly  academic  programs.  experience  teacher-student  and r e l a t i o n s h i p s  involvement  district  and t a k e n  the v a r i o u s  the previous  the in  camp a g e n c i e s .  l a r g e School  o r i e n t e d programs t o h i g h l y  orientation  has  will  instrumentation  programs, c o n d u c t e d  has w i t n e s s e d  p r o g r a m s w h i c h have m i r r o r e d  social  evidence  h a s had c o n s i d e r a b l e  s c h o o l s a n d summer  noted  This  situation  of the Problem  the researcher  development  learning  a l . (1965).  1965 t h e r e s e a r c h e r  of both  and  e l a b o r a t i o n of the  numerous r e s i d e n t i a l  auspices  these  teaching  Lewis  Chapter  the  of  this  (1971)  relationships.  c o n d i t i o n s most and l e a s t  explained during  in  B  Heine,  further  of  inventory  involving  relationships. Empirical  with  Goldstien  of. these  illustrate  Appendix by  and  nature  item  would  p e r s o n a l i t y change  Knoblock  parallel  used  Goldstein  constructive  twenty  which  statements  any  and  i s a frequent  Despite  suggests"  that  student-teacher  outcome o f p r o g r a m s  12  where s t u d e n t s environment  away  Since departures  new  teachers  from  from  views  testimonials  the  school of  of  live  home and  residential  traditional of  and  and  the  outdoor  programs  or c l a s s r o o m ,  experiences  together  traditional  situations,  participant  work  roles they  foster and  new  significant  tasks  facilitate  effect  a  school.  personalities.  to t h i s  in  are  of  the  the  emergence  The  following  typical:  It gives them (the p a r t i c i p a n t s ) an o p p o r t u n i t y t o s o r t o f s t r e t c h t h e m s e l v e s . Some s t r a n g e t h i n g s happen t o y o u n g s t e r s when t h e y come t o camp. Not just new vital experiences in c l a s s w o r k , but new o u t l o o k s on t h e p e r s o n a l i t y of t h e i r c l a s s m a t e s and new v a l u e s of l i v i n g w i t h p e o p l e (Schramm, 1969, p . 1 4 0 ) . What impressed me most was t h a t many of us showed a n o t h e r s i d e of our p e r s o n a l i t y . Some who a r e leaders in t h e c l a s s became t i m i d o u t d o o r s . Some o f t h e l e a s t likely students became leaders (Ontario Teachers' F e d e r a t i o n , 1970, p.5). Documentation  of  residential  consistently  pay  tribute  relationships  that  occur:  to  the  outdoor  program  change  in  experiences  student-teacher  ...teachers who have embarked upon s u c h e n t e r p r i s e s have r e p o r t e d t h e s e s o c i a l g a i n s : 1. U n d e r s t a n d i n g of c l a s s m a t e s . 2. Improved r e l a t i o n s h i p s and communication between t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s . ( V i v i a n & R i l l o , 1970, p.6). The natural world is a wonderful l e v e l l e r . Often c h i l d r e n a r e h e a r d t o remark on a f i r s t f i e l d t r i p , 'I d i d n ' t know t e a c h e r s had o l d c l o t h e s . ' On a p a r t i c u l a r o c c a s i o n as a c l a s s r e t u r n e d from a lengthy hike, a light rain began to fall. In a true spirit of democracy i t soaked the teacher as well as the s t u d e n t s , and a t t h i s p o i n t t h e t e a c h e r h e a r d a boy on the trail comment, 'He looks j u s t l i k e one o f us-' ( O n t a r i o T e a c h e r s F e d e r a t i o n , 1970, p.5). I a s k e d t h e c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s w h e t h e r camp r e a l l y had made a difference in their relationship to the children. They said i t had. They knew t h e p u p i l s better and more p e r s o n a l l y , and had a common e x p e r i e n c e t o t a l k a b o u t (Schramm, 1969, p . 1 8 7 ) . A  comment  which  has  been  reported  by  a t e a c h e r , and  a  13  comment  which  teachers,  the  perhaps  investigator expresses  the  has  heard  magnitude  many of  times  from  the p e r c e i v e d  change. I ' l l s a y t h i s . I've been a b l e to get closer to my pupils up here this week and t a l k w i t h them more f r a n k l y a b o u t t h e i r r e a l f e e l i n g s t h a n I was e v e r a b l e t o do a t home... I ' d g i v e a n y t h i n g t o be a b l e t o come up here w i t h them e a r l y i n t h e f a l l , and g e t s t a r t e d on t h i s k i n d of a r e l a t i o n s h i p a t t h e . b e g i n n i n g o f t h e s c h o o l y e a r (Schramm, 1969, p.140). Further, achievements realized, normal  it  has  can  been  better  in a residential  s c h o o l or  suggested be  realized,  outdoor  that or  situation  these  goals  perhaps and  not  only in  classroom.  ...you would see no s u l l e n d o c i l i t y - w h i c h i s n e v e r e n t i r e l y a b s e n t i n d o o r s . I n s t e a d , you w o u l d see more friendliness between student and student, and between s t u d e n t and t e a c h e r than the walls of a classroom would ever encourage...Relations between teachers and students show a healthy improvement ( C o n r a d , 1947, p.40). Again and again t h e y come back t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c a m p i n g e x p e r i e n c e g i v e s them a c h a n c e to study and know children in a way t h a t n o t h i n g e l s e c a n . . . T h e c h i l d r e n are together d u r i n g the entire twenty-four hours of the d a y . The t e a c h e r s e e s them i n work and play combinations and group situations that would never occur any p l a c e e x c e p t camp... N o t h i n g e l s e i n the u s u a l s c h o o l program...permits such d i s c l o s u r e of group structure and t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e l a t i o n t o i t . T e a c h e r s have s a i d o v e r and over that the camping e x p e r i e n c e i s w o r t h h a v i n g i f f o r 'no o t h e r r e a s o n t h a n the chance i t gives them t o see t h e a c t u a l s o c i a l make-up o f t h e c l a s s ( S a c k , 1953, p.501). The many s i d e s o f t h e personality which are almost a u t o m a t i c a l l y drawn o u t when t e a c h e r and p u p i l s h a r e a real experience may never be seen in the more r e s t r i c t e d a t m o s p h e r e of t h e c l a s s r o o m . . . One of the s i g n i f i c a n t b e n e f i t s t h a t comes t o t e a c h e r s and p u p i l s who share in the v i v i d and a d v e n t u r o u s e x p e r i e n c e s that outdoor education o f f e r s is that of a better u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f e a c h o t h e r ( S m i t h , 1957, p.31).  and be the  14  Educational The  Context  of  literature  the  Problem  and  studies  teacher-student  relationship  ambiguous  even  and  gauge t h e  effect  of  on  regarding  education  as  contradictory. Despite this  factor  on  teaching  the  impact  a whole  of  is  the  highly  numerous a t t e m p t s and  to  learning  We r e m a i n v e r y l a r g e l y i g n o r a n t of how t e a c h e r s a f f e c t the i n t e l l e c t u a l and emotional development of the pupils they teach, and more s i g n i f i c a n t l y we r e m a i n l a r g e l y i g n o r a n t o f how b e s t t o go about developing t h e knowledge ( N u t h a l l & C h u r c h , 1973, p.9). This many  is  other  not  surprising  variables  process.  The  fact  variables  and  their  studies such  for  as  is  that  educators  conclusion  the  the  examines the the  overall  number and makes  effects  nature  the  educational  complexity  rigorously  almost  of  the  controlled  of p a r t i c u l a r  relationships,  of  variables,  unmanageable  1972). theory  to take  the  relationships  process.  in  interactions  establishing  However,  teacher  involved  teacher-student  (Hargreaves,  i f one  The that  and  trained  position are  argument  that  important takes  education  intuition  have  teacher-student t o the  is a social  and  overall  i t s b a s i s from  the  led  most  student-  educational long-standing  process.  The p r i n c i p l e t h a t development of experience comes about through interaction means t h a t e d u c a t i o n i s a s o c i a l p r o c e s s " (Dewey, 1938, p.58). This stated  position  has  i n many ways by  withstood many  the  test  of  time  and  has  authors:  ...one of the most c e n t r a l f e a t u r e s o f e d u c a t i o n i t s s o c i a l q u a l i t y ( H a r g r e a v e s , 1972, p.2).  is  The most f u n d a m e n t a l t h i n g a b o u t c l a s s r o o m experience is that it is social; it is a c o n t i n u a l set of i n t e r a c t i o n s with other people. I c a l l t h i s the most fundamental thing because there is no e s c a p e ; the  been  15  demands a r e there and they must be met... These interactions a r e most f u n d a m e n t a l f o r a n o t h e r reason: they make a difference in the learning p r o c e s s . . . S o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s s e t the c o n d i t i o n s under w h i c h l e a r n i n g o c c u r s ( T h e l a n , 1954, p.vi). If  one  between  concurs  students  with  and  these  teachers  views  become one  then of  the  the  interactions  primary  focal  / i  points  of  education,  The teacher  conduct  and  of  i s governed,  educational  these  r e s e a r c h as  interactions  i n p a r t , by  teacher  well.  between  student  perceptions  of  and  student  characteristics. Student c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . . a f f e c t t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of students. In particular, they . a f f e c t teacher e x p e c t a t i o n s and attitudes regarding students, and this in turn a f f e c t s t h e way t h e t e a c h e r s d e a l w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s ( B r o p h y & Good, 1974, p.29). Other is  s t u d i e s have  s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by  as  w e l l as  of  the  the  students  Hoyt's  (1955)  teachers  changing  (Herrell,  c o n t i n u a l feedback student  student  or  nature  student and  these  perceptions  1971;  Klein,  conclude  perceptions  interactions  of,  l o o p which can  increasing teacher  that  the  alter  teacher  teacher  In  has  addition,  knowledge the  that  students'  t e a c h e r s . The then,  be  and  t h a t the 1971).  can  interactions,  knowledge  of  a t t i t u d e s towards the  characteristics  student-teacher  characteristics  the  investigations  t o w a r d s , and  increasing  of  expectations  have o f p u p i l  attitudes  a  shown t h a t  process  seems t o d e p e n d  substantively altered  perceptions knowledge and  of  of on by  teacher  perceptions  characteristics.  The teacher must know relevant, facts about each individual student....Attitudes and behaviors of t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s a r e h e a v i l y influenced by the information that they have, or t h i n k t h a t they have, on hand ( B r o p h y & Good, 1974, p.29).  16  . . . i f educators are able to discover the feelings, f e a r s and w i s h e s t h a t move p e o p l e e m o t i o n a l l y t h e y can more effectively engage pupils f r o m any b a c k g r o u n d ( W e i n s t e i n & F a n t i n i , 1971, p.10). If  residential  and  outdoor  teachers,  change  in  new  programs can  personal  perceptions  provide,  information  and  to  both  regarding  interpersonal  students  each o t h e r ,  behavior  is  a  highly  probable. Further,  according  interpersonal only in may  a  the  behavior,  reflection person's  lead  to  of  current  views  a person's conduct  one  role, a  to  dimension  of  of  in a group  of  and  is  often  his personality. A  change  group s t r u c t u r e , group  manifestation  personality  activity  another  or  dimension  task  of  his  personality. Bales  '  states  that:  You see o n l y his interpersonal behavior which may reflect o n l y one s i d e of h i s p e r s o n a l i t y , e l i c i t e d by t h i s p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p , i t s s t r u c t u r e and h i s role in i t . . . ( B a l e s , 1970, p.10). A  change  traditional  alter  student  As  usually  curriculum should  and  of  be  programs  personality  then  new  Since  the  This  the  of  the  both  a c l a s s from exposure  students  provides  i n the  new  teachers  input  for  the  and  teacher-  residential  outdoor  context science  p o t e n t i a l merit about  the  of  and  student-teacher  schools,  bringing  outdoor  role  present-day  conducted  interpersonal  residential  which  perceptions.  aware o f  for  or  facilitate  upon  stimulating  relationships.  particular outdoor  should  mutual  loop,  programs . are science  structure  information  their  feedback  the  school  personality may  in  of  the  regular  teachers of  in  residential  c o n s t r u c t i v e changes  in  behavior.  p r o g r a m s have  developed,  and  more  17  and  more  outdoor have  children  schools,  come  schools, from  have  their  more  life  in  part  i n the  objectives,  and  which are  taken  more  structure  to m i r r o r  "...often designed  order  the to  t o make i t e a s y  " ( P a r t r i d g e , 1 9 4 3 ) . As  in  residential  field  high degree more the  and  of  of  o r g a n i z a t i o n and  more  specialists  i n c r e a s i n g use  simply  the  experience" the  camp  rather  of  last (Sharp  the  normal shut  facilities,  or  traditional  the  child  teacher  early  as  to  1947,  scheduling,  the  the  employment  of  lead  "departments"  "assembly  line  g a d g e t s where t h e  in  a  to  revolve  student  of  pre-fabricated p.8)  around  and  the  child  which  is has  this  and  potentially crucial  extinction  and  The  in  teachers  and  for  accomplished. changes  the  social  lack  students  should  Hopefully,  enthusiasm  for a venture  the  the  facilities  the  proposed  study  perceptions  and  take  place,  study  which  will  i s so  most p r e s s i n g s o c i a l  a have  can  some l i g h t  relationships do  take  residential  re-kindle  uniquely  n e e d s of  may  what  shed  suggests in  programs  threatened  of  i s to  of of to  study:  which  is  understanding this  outdoor  venture,  that experience  programs.  some of  for  consequences,  of  p u r p o s e of  suggests  in residential  educational  interpersonal  and  theory  trend  impetus  significant  personal  of  were:  current  given  is  tendency  ...moving camping away f r o m t h e original meaning the term and, a t w o r s t , have r o b b e d t h e y o u n g s t e r t h e v e r y e x p e r i e n c e f o r w h i c h he s h o u l d be going camp ( S h a r p & P a r t r i d g e , 1947, p.18). It  camps,  construction  the  equipment  pursue  that  to  step  away  leaders  programs c a u t i o n e d  & P a r t r i d g e , 1947,  program  than  outdoor  residential  and  f o r the  book-learning... the  programs,  this  suited  the to  by be on of  place, outdoor  flame  of  meeting  era: personal  and  18  social  growth  that  there  and  one  are  and  should where  development. Piaget  be  two  classrooms,  i s supposed  t o have  said  where t h e  teacher  is,  one  the  teacher  i s not.  p l a c e s where t h e  teacher  should  R e s i d e n t i a l outdoor be,  but  as  Kelly  centres  puts i t :  ...textbooks and lessons should be left home...Teachers need t o accompany ( t h e i r c l a s s e s ) n o t t o c a r r y on their classes as usual in a s e t t i n g ( K e l l y , 1972, p.3).  Spec i f i c P r o b l e m s o f From t h e student  and  in  evidence  Study  above d i s c u s s i o n i t i s c l e a r teacher  characteristics place  the  and  interpersonal outdoor  t o p o s t u l a t e an  ideal  students'  with  the  of  that  with  s t u d i e s . No  such  teacher  perception  of  interpersonal perceptions  specific 1.  must  order  be  What  What  is  with  the  perceptions after  does  nature of  completion  should  take strong  of h i s o r  and  the  may  be  taken  the  examination  general are  in  problem  of  from ideal  then,  proposed: in  a  residential  perceptions  the  change  personality  of a r e s i d e n t i a l  in  of  their  teacher  characteristics  outdoor  or  these  nature.  teacher?  student  the  students'  t o p o s t u l a t e an  exploratory  students'  of  her  personality characteristics  participation  the  both  personality  is also  or  direction exists  in  when e x a m i n i n g  teacher,  for investigation  p r o g r a m have on  relationships 2.  the  There  perception  Therefore,  examine  effect  outdoor  student  the  Therefore,  the  more g e n e r a l  to  problems  student  evidence  relationships.  of  relationships  relationship,  previous  t h a t a change  programs.  teacher.  relationship  perception  In  perceptions  residential  relationship  at but new  program?  three  19  3.  What  is  perceptions the  the  nature of  the  of  the  change  interpersonal  c l a s s a f t e r completion  of  a  in  teacher  relationships residential  within outdoor  program?  /  Basic  A s s u m p t i o n s of This  study  the  Study  is structured  education,  interpersonal  residential  outdoor  around  five  relationships  assumptions and  concerning  perceptions,  and  programs:  1. An i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n s of o t h e r s has a major i n f l u e n c e on h i s or her i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h others. 2. Positive experiences in will facilitate positive interpersonal interactions.  interpersonal interaction change in future  3. A better understanding by the teacher of p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e p u p i l s and social structure of t h e c l a s s w i l l p r o m o t e a b e t t e r teaching and l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n . 4. An improved student perception of his or her relationship with the t e a c h e r , as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e s t a t e m e n t s of L e w i s e t a l . ( 1 9 6 5 ) , w i l l facilitate a b e t t e r t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n . 5. C e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f r e s i d e n t i a l o u t d o o r p r o g r a m s a r e conducive to the promotion of positive change i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n s and i n t e r a c t i o n s .  ;  20  CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF  A review to  of  the  literature  student-teacher  specifically are,  i n the  however,  this  particular  field  relationships  through  when  (1957)  showed  process  that  pertaining  a l l  portions  Peterson outdoor  need  working the  programs.  There  in associated rationale  of  student-teacher  i n s c h o o l s . At  and  to e d u c a t i o n  the  and  other  same  time,  relationships  of  s c h o o l camps. She  i n g e n e r a l were  o f a s c h o o l p r o g r a m . As likely  on  conferences  similar  such,  generalizable  to  and  understand  attitudes  the  examined outdoor  .  (1965),  positive  Davidson  the  implied  applicable  the  findings  of  to  residential  affective  affirmed Doty  by  the  necessity  o u t c o m e s due each  these  of  (1960),  p r o c e s s and by  to  Berger  improve  (1958)  and  •  (1965)  self-concept  programs. Although  conclusions,  group  were r e p o r t e d  (1964).  Jensen  of  done  programs.  skills  O'Hare  been  the  effects  individual  in classrooms  (1963) a r e most  The work  outdoor  support  positive  praise,  educational  to  pertaining  has  w h i c h have been done  t o , and  found  supports  factors  which  residential  studies  study  study. (1963)  Kleindienst  of  interest  Peterson  emotional  shows o n l y one  relationships  several  a r e a s which a r e of  RELATED STUDIES  and  changes studies  of e x a m i n i n g  to r e s i d e n t i a l  K r i e g e r .(1970) a l l through  residential  came t o few  substantive  the v a r i o u s outdoor  dimensions  programs  was  them. in  a  ten  year  study  of  YMCA  camps,  21  concentrated  on  character  development  establishment  of o p e r a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s  She  found  that  positive  can  occur  during residential  The  study  conducted  closest  by Vogan a  behavioral  teacher  participating  instrument  lists  criteria  Although objectives  that  and  further  degree  of  outdoor  traits  study  instrument tool  for  experience".  are  of  postulated  changes those  and  was "to the This  to  effect  behavioral  objectives.  Appendix  instrument. for  Vogan  made  relationship  p r o g r a m s . One  of  attainment no  attempt  changes.  r e s e a r c h w o u l d be  student-teacher  i s to accomplish  an  outdoor  criteria  proposed,  character  evaluative  relationship  this  necessary  were  residential study  of  student-teacher  proposed nature  items  an  which  for attainment  experiences.  particular  established  the  objectives  necessary  D c o n t a i n s the  actual  in  to  programs. to t h i s  and  reference  i n camping  specified  scope  She  guide  student-teacher  in  outdoor  in  (1970).  provide  positive  changes  with  to  major  t h e above p r o p o s a l of  the  examine  Rather,  r e q u i r e d t o examine  relationship the  of  she the  changes d u r i n g goals  Vogan.  of  this  22  CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY  Specific  Problems of the Study  For the convenience  of the. resader, the s p e c i f i c problems of  the study a r e r e s t a t e d below: 1. What  effect  outdoor  does  participation  in a  residential  program have on s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e i r  r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the teacher? 2. What  i s the nature  perceptions  of  a f t e r completion 3. What  of  student  change  personality  in  of  the  teacher  characteristics  of a r e s i d e n t i a l outdoor  i s the nature  perceptions  the  change  program? in  '  (  teacher  of the i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n  a class after  completion  of  a  residential  outdoor  program?  P o p u l a t i o n And Sample The  target  population  i n t e r m e d i a t e grades  taking part in r e s i d e n t i a l  in the p r o v i n c e ' o f B r i t i s h The  determination  a c t u a l s e l e c t i o n of the limited consent  by  of" the a c c e s s i b l e experimental  owners,  of  school  school p r i n c i p a l s , p a r t i c i p a t i n g which fall  had a l r e a d y planned of 1 9 8 0 .  outdoor  programs  Columbia.  the d i f f i c u l t y  of camp  f o r the study was a l l students i n  groups  p o p u l a t i o n and the of  simultaneously boards  and  students  was  o b t a i n i n g the  their  officials,  t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s of c l a s s e s  a r e s i d e n t i a l outdoor  program f o r the  23  The  above  selection  and  compensate Stanley  logistical  problems  assignment  for  this  of  students.  problem,  (1963), comparison status,  teacher  of w i l l i n g n e s s  outdoor  Four  classes  of a p p r o p r i a t e  classes  previously  in  mentioned  were u s e d  Three the  to  the  four-five  class  was  school  accessible  their  class  were g r a d e entirety.  and o n l y  used.  When  five  of  restrictions  on  district  fitting  located. and  classes  The f o u r t h  the grade  the  These  a l l  four  considering  t h e r e was n o t h i n g a p p a r e n t l y  the  classes  in  be t h o u g h t  the  study.  As  of as t y p i c a l  suburban  portion  of f a m i l i e s ,  communities  ethnic  grade  they  five  the  ratio, makeup , any  may,  classes  of the p r o v i n c e  split  of  unusual about  such  used  was a  male-female  the l i k e ,  used  and were  class  five  and  mainland  residential  identification  population  socio-economic status  lower  and  for- the s t u d y .  intelligence,  probability,  level,  i n the study.  in  grade  in  further  subjects  grade  and  location,  participate  imposed  to  by C a m p b e l l  for  following  random  attempt  geographical  a semi-urban  of the c l a s s e s  study  an  r e q u i r e m e n t s were ' f i n a l l y  constitute  classes  in  matched  p r o g r a m s had t o be s e l e c t e d  location  In  recommended  general  the e x p e r i m e n t a l groups. T h i s the  as  groups,  socio-economic variable  of sampling p r o h i b i t e d  of  of  in a l l in  the  British  Columbia. Two  of t h e c l a s s e s ,  as  e x p e r i e n c e a s e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p s . The o t h e r two  as comparison  t o as C l a s s e s C groups.  together i n the  Classes  outdoor  referred  participated  to  and  used  (n=14),  referred  (n=26)  hereafter  B  hereafter  (n=21)  and  D  A  residential groups,  (n=23),  were  24  Treatment The  treatment  used  in this  study  program as  p r e v i o u s l y d e f i n e d i n the  type  highly  are  facilities,  complex  staff,  and  the  experience  which  example, weather c o n d i t i o n s activity.  undesirable,  to determine  study.  the  r e s e a r c h e r accompanied  for  the  time  period  of  the  recorded  and  i s considered  the  criterion  important list  of For  questions  treatment,  behaviors  c r i t e r i a used  each  the  of  the  the  during  program.  conduct  For  of  an  probably used  treatment,  the  the  attention (1970)  An  week  was  In  the  treatment. was  paid  as  behaviors -  to  being  relationships.  i n Appendix  *  program.  during  Vogan  listed criterion •  occur  outdoor  student-teacher  were a n s w e r e d  site,  a participant-observer  class  by  i s contained  of  addition,  t o d e f i n e the  particular  defined of  the  this  p r e c i s e treatment  residential of  can  of  i m p o s s i b l e , and  to c o n s t i t u t e  i n the development  the  i t was  In  planned  the c l a s s e s as  activities  the  etc.  prohibit  such  the  of  of  the  In o r d e r more c l e a r l y  account  description  modify  i n advance  this  many a s p e c t s  programs,  may  As  in  on  outdoor  Programs  unpredictable events  will  anticipated  a residential  study.  differ  time-tabling,  numerous u n a n t i c i p a t e d and  was  A  D. the f o l l o w i n g -  1.  Is the criterion behavior appropriate to . t h i s situation? ( i f the answer is "no" t h e n i g n o r e t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s and go on t o the next criterion behavior.) As an example, i f no o t h e r c l a s s e s w i l l be using the s i t e , the c r i t e r i o n b e h a v i o r s w i t h r e s p e c t to c o n t a c t i n g o t h e r c l a s s e s are not a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e situation. 2. Was t h e c r i t e r i o n b e h a v i o r e x h i b i t e d ? 3. How o f t e n was t h e c r i t e r i o n b e h a v i o r e x h i b i t e d ? 4. When was t h e c r i t e r i o n b e h a v i o r e x h i b i t e d ? 5. How was the criterion behavior exhibited in each instance? In  order  to  provide  data  for  the  description  of  the  25  treatment  a  procedures  was e s t a b l i s h e d .  Since  monitoring  this  relationships, teachers  as  process  study  dealt  daily  with  the a c t i v i t i e s they  of  of  interacted  activities  changes  the  with  in  student-teacher  participating students  and  classroom  were  of  primary  i  concern. formed  For the  activities rather aides  this basis  and  than and  of  the  time  the  time  separated  by  on  monitoring which  teachers  taken  on  Teacher  separated.  In  where  periodically  to ensure  provide  researcher  the A.  time  information  was  not  able  the  teachers the  separated, was  an  of  recorded  monitor  time  began  period  observations  continued,  time  were  alternating  teachers  was  were  interviewed observations  periods  their  of  physically  second  researcher's  the  teacher  equality  were  teacher the  their  researcher  p e r i o d t h a t the  on to  i t was and  accomplish  During  each  accuracy  observed  teacher,  T h i s procedure  addition,  and  teachers  other .on-site teachers,  were p h y s i c a l l y B.  classroom  process  were  each c l a s s r o o m  t e a c h e r s d u r i n g each  to  of  observing Teacher  the  individual  s u p e r v i s o r s . To  period  where  and  the  activities  accompanying  first  the  interactions  observation  between  reason  when  the  activities  and  interactions. To the  supplement  program  recreation/ This  was  each  in  above d a t a ,  terms  instruction/ done  individuals activity,  the  the  and  by  groups,  the  free  the  logistical  physical time  personnel  of  the  undertaken  p l a c e of  activity,  and  documented.  structure the  of  procedures  of. a c t i v i t i e s  each a c t i v i t y ,  director  living  structure  o r g a n i z a t i o n was  r e c o r d i n g types  d u r a t i o n of  activity,  of  the  for  by each  conduct  and  how  of the  26  activity  was c a r r i e d  teachers' During  day  out.  books,  The  information  written  plans  was  and  field  i n t e r v i e w s with- t h e t e a c h e r s , c h e c k s  agreement  between  what  was  planned  conducted.  Any d i s c r e p a n c i e s were n o t e d  obtained  observations.  were made  and  from  what  to  was  and s u i t a b l e  ensure actually  alterations  /  to  t h e w r i t t e n r e c o r d were made. A description The  a  residential  three-day  was  an  with  operating rural  "heritage village  village"  on  were a p i o n e e r was  no  accomplished a central  students  farm  site.  store building  by w o o d - f i r e d  slept  cook  an  controlled Heating  was  village  site  Columbia. forming  a  i n c l u d e d i n the old  schoolhouse.  heating,  was  s t o v e s a n d w a t e r was drawn  from  Gas  for  the  electrical cabins  Three unisex  village.  Also  and  p i ttoilets  lamps  lofts.  The  pioneer  c o n d i t i o n s with minor a l t e r a t i o n s  safety  thesis  cabins  were l o c a t e d  provided  on foam mats i n bunks o r on t h e f l o o r  entire  follows.  British  i n a group o f l o g  water p r o v i d e d .  the  study  studied in this  i n south-western  the  piped-in supply.  in this  a " H e r i t a g e . S t u d i e s " theme. The  thermostatically  the edges of  used  program  farm  was p r o v i d e d  power o r r u n n i n g  on  outdoor  experience  Accommodation  There  of the treatment  had  been  light  and  of sleeping  constructed to simulate to provide  f o r student  and h e a l t h .  Transportation school  bus c a r r i e d  km. The r e t u r n t r i p The  t o the s i t e the students  was  and t h e i r  was a c c o m p l i s h e d  weather d u r i n g  the program  light  s h o w e r s and o c c a s i o n a l heavy  from  four  degrees  provided  Celsius  rain.  t o twelve  train  equipment  entirely was  by  the l a s t  a 22  by s c h o o l b u s .  cloudy  with  The t e m p e r a t u r e s  degrees  and  Celsius.  frequent ranged Although  27  the  w e a t h e r was  periods  not  of  appropriate  conducive  time, clothing  the and  to  staying  students  the  were  activities  outside well  for  long  prepared  proceeded  as  with  had  been  planned. Students then  divided  Tables the  3.1  purposes  numbered class  and  B  in  the  two  into  four cabin  groups  and  3.2  the  of  this  display  r e p o r t the  referred  will  be  "B14". C l a s s r o o m  t o as  on-site  t e a c h e r s and/or  to  as  addition  the  class  "TA1", "TA2",  researcher  will  and  to the  be  referred  "A01"  experience.  to  and  class  to  there  "B01"  For be in to  "CTA"  and  were  three  be  helpers referred  respectively.  The  as "R".  3.1  S t r u c t u r e of  Cabin  Groups  Cabin Group 2 (CG2)  Cabin Group 3 (CG3)  A01 A04  A02 A03 A05 A06 All B03 B06 B13 H2  A15 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 A22 A23 A25 B04 B08 Bll CTB HI  A08 A09 A10 B02 B05 BIO B14 R  as  volunteer  C a b i n Group 1 (CGI)  A07  will  students  They w i l l  "H2'\  groups. A  and  groups.  "A26". S t u d e n t s  teachers two  study  these  t o as  a i d e s and  "HI"  to  referred  classroom  Table Personnel  in  referred  teacher  "TA3",  s t r u c t u r e of  be  f o r the  three  students  teachers w i l l  In  c l a s s e s were p o o l e d  and  students  numbered  "CTB".  accompanied  experimental  Cabin Group 4 (CG4)  •  A12 A13 A14 A16 A24 A26 B01 B07 B09 B12 CTA  28  Table Personnel  Study  Groups  Study Group 2 (SG2)  Study Group 3 (SG3)  A02 A03 All A17 A18 A19 A20 B01 B03 B04 B07 B13 B14  A01 A04 A06 A07 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 B06 B09 BIO Bll  A05 A08 A09 A10 A21 A22 A23 A24 A25 A26 B02 B05 B08 B12  study  more  formal  activities,  organized The  evening three  of  study  Cook i n g  The the  instances  and  activities S3)  guidance  to prepare  and  cooking  was  the the  i n the  Eggs  vegetables  were  collected  study  Pioneer  Cooking,  to  cabins  and  from  to  according be  group  an  S2)  worked  the on  a from  from large the  t o the  prepared.  the  a l l  teacher  camp.  wood s t o v e s . worked  time  In  under  entire  students  gathered  harvested  were p r o v i d e d  meal  village  ingredients.  were  and  -  varied  serve meals  for a l l dishes  vegetables  activities,  three  SI)  activity  were p r o v i d e d  were  recreation  were: S I )  Act i v i ty  thus in  potatoes  p r o g r a m c o n s i s t e d of  Farm S t u d i e s .  Cooking  students  done  the  "heritage crafts".  (Study  Pioneer  activity  s t r u c t u r e of  three organized  C o n s t r u c t i o n and  Pioneer  of  S t r u c t u r e of  Study Group 1 (SGI)  The  Log  3.2  All  Recipes  from  basic  p o u l t r y house  root  cellar.  Some  while  other  garden,  i n b u l k . Honey p r o d u c e d  and  on  the  farm  was  29  also  used  i n cooking. After  responsible prepared  the meal,  the  same  f o r washing d i s h e s and c l e a n i n g  students  were  up. The a c t u a l  food  was:  Day 1 Supper Meat L o a f Soda B r e a d B o i l e d Potatoes F r u i t Salad Orange J u i c e Day 2 Potato Baking Fresh Apple  Lunch Soup Powder Fruit Juice  Biscuits  Day 2 S u p p e r Chicken Drumsticks B a k e d Beans C o l e Slaw Apple C r i s p Orange J u i c e Individual cabins  on  bread, eggs but  c a b i n groups both  butter, was  their  A supply of j u i c e ,  jam, p e a n u t  such  breakfasts in  butter,  things  as  oatmeal,  b a c o n and  their  s u g a r , milk",  freshly  collected  according to i n d i v i d u a l  scrambled  eggs,  own  fried  tastes  eggs  and  toast.  The  first  day's  s t u d e n t s . On t h e l a s t according breakfast jam,  prepared  a v a i l a b l e . Menu v a r i e d  included  french  days.  --—"  to  his  period.  peanut  l u n c h was b r o u g h t day, each  or  her  Students  butter,  student  own  were  sliced  from made  individual supplied  meats,  home by a  individual  packed  lunch,  tastes,, d u r i n g the  with  cheese,  bread, fruit  butter,  and canned  juice. Log  C o n s t r u c t i o n (Study The  methods  log of  Activity  construction  log  S2)  study  cabin building.  groups Students  examined  types  examined both  and  chinked  30  and  c h i n k l e s s c o n s t r u c t i o n as w e l l  notching.  The c a b i n s  variety  of  log  hewn p l a n k ,  i n the v i l l a g e  construction  dovetail  excellent  study  as saddle  V  methods  h a d been c o n s t r u c t e d  of  using a  methods and t h e o l d stor;e was o f  construction.  examples  and  for  These  structures  the students.  provided  The s t u d e n t s  were  /  then  provided  duplicate A  and  green  discussion  of  roofing  materials  made  their  own m a l l e t  saws and h a t c h e t s .  These m a l l e t s  froes  to  on  were  a  used  proceeded  prepared,  schoolhouse.  split  ground  they  the roof  and  shakes  t o l a y a shake  After  construction, tested  and  attempted  and  i n v o l v i n g the manufacture and use  student  students  logs  to  t h e methods.  activities Each  equipment  level  the  students  crouched  by p o u r i n g  under  from  alder  shakes. using  their  b o l t s . The own  frame  l o c a t e d behind  were  satisfied  shakes the o l d  with  their  and t h e t e a c h e r  of water  over  bow  manufactured  provided  using  l e d to  cedar  commercially  the roof  a bucket  of  from green  roof,  roof  methods  the  aide  completed  structure. The crosscut  activity  house,  (Study  farm  study  barn,  hay  Activity groups  done  during  activities milking  using  two-man  the  poultry  loft  always  the  their  and f i e l d s  feeding  candling  A n i m a l s a v a i l a b l e on t h e  time  that  were r e q u i r e d  of the a c t i v i t y . of animals,  and w e i g h i n g farm  in  of the farm. A c t i v i t i e s f o r  to the chores  time p e r i o d  included  and g a t h e r i n g ,  S3) spent  each group v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g be  a l o g sawing c o n t e s t  saws.  Farm S t u d i e s The  ended w i t h  included  to  However, t h e  cleaning  of pens,  eggs. chickens,  ducks,  31  pheasants, sheep, least  doves,  goats  The  Honey  The  as  sampled  Life  c y c l e s of  Gold  Panning  and  of  sluices  Although sand  no  was  historical the  (Recreation a  and  dairy),  opportunity  to  In a d d i t i o n , types  at the  of  both  of  w e r e : R l - B e e s and  b e e s and  went  to  constructed  spun out  u s e s of  visible  g o l d was  and  examined  these  bee  hives,  e x t r a c t i n g . Comb  honey  t o be  used  on  products  with  the  nearby  from the  were  in  cooking.  discussed.  aspects  gold production the  to  heavy  Rockers  gold  mineralized  conducted  in  attempt  sand.  more t r a d i t i o n a l  were  underlying  river  g r a v e l and  recovered  Discussions  concepts  house  honey  obtained. of  study  R2)  extracting placer gold along  bee  and  apian  Activity  sand b a r s  were t r i e d  R2-  Rl)  bees. Students  students  Honey,  Hike.  Activity  specially  (Recreation  scientific  placer  R3-Exploratory  and  Students  the  animals.  methods of comb c o l l e c t i n g  was  methods  had  beef  t o examine v a r i o u s  recreation activites  active hives  w e l l as  of  (both  far..i e q u i p m e n t .  f a r m has  several  types  opportunity  powered  P a n n i n g and  Bees and  a l l the  the  three  cattle  swine. A l l s t u d e n t s  touch  had  manual and  Gold  and  v i e w and  students  r a b b i t s , horses,  British  on  pan. black  both  the  Columbia  and  o p e r a t i o n a l procedures  of  gold extraction.  Exploratory This  Hike  (Recreat ion Act i v i ty  activity  varied  interests  of  the  mountain,  providing  R3)  according  individuals excellent  to  the  participating.  capabilities Trails  v i e w s of  the  valley  crafts"  consisted  and  up  the  below,  were  explored. The  evening  of  "pioneer  of  three  32  activities dipping, milk  conducted  Cabin  i c e cream Students  2-  divided  finished  dipping their  cabins.  The  time  snack  follows: activity DAY  1  the  After  the  i c e cream  completion  The  from  between  candles,  s t u d e n t s who  After  soap to take  cabins:  Cabin  l y e and  1-  animal  Beeswax  candle  f a t , and  Goat-  making.  activities.  s o a p and  two  Soap m a k i n g  assigned  the  in  of  and  had  that  two  initial the  the  student  candle  the  began  their  making  group  rotated  making c a n d l e s ,  previous  had  and  students  begun by  the a c t i v i t i e s  each  cabins  group  had  between completed started.  i c e cream p r o v i d e d a  a beeswax c a n d l e  and  bed-  a bar  of  was  as  then  the  home.  t i m e t a b l e and (if  no  applied  personnel  personnel to the  total  makeup f o r t h e p r o g r a m  structure  is  indicated  group) -  08:45 - B o a r d t r a i n and d e p a r t 10:40 - L e a v e t r a i n and b o a r d bus 11:20 - A r r i v a l a t t h e s i t e , u n l o a d , b r i e f on safety, sanitary f a c i l i t i e s , w a t e r , s i t e , wood, s t o v e s , lamps, e t c . 12:00 - L u n c h a t t h e p h y s i c a l c h a l l e n g e c o u r s e ( r o p e c o u r s e and maze) 12:45 - B r e a k i n t o s t u d y g r o u p s and b e g i n f i r s t s t u d y s e s s i o n Si-Cooking S2-Logs S3-Farm SG2 SGI SG3 CTA TAl TA2 CTB HI ' TA3 R H2 15:15 - F r e e t i m e 15:45 - S t r u c t u r e d r e c r e a t i o n Rl-Bees R2-Gold R3-Hike SGI SG3 SG2 TA2 TAl CTA R 17:00 - D i n n e r 17:35 - F r e e t i m e 18:35 - S q u a r e d a n c i n g o u t d o o r s u n d e r t h e l i g h t s i n f r o n t of t h e barn 19:30 - Songs and s t o r i e s i n t h e l o f t 20:30 - Hot c h o c o l a t e , wash and b r u s h t e e t h , f r e e t i m e 21:30 - Bed and l i g h t s o u t  33  DAY 2 B r e a k f a s t , c l e a n c a b i n s , morning Second study p e r i o d Sl-Cooking S2-Logs SG3 SG2 CTA TA1 CTB HI R Free time Lunch Free time T h i r d study p e r i o d Sl-Cooking S2-Logs SG3 SG2 SGI SG3 CTA TA1 CTB HI R Free time Structured recreation R2-Gold Rl-Bees SG2 SG3 TA1 TA1  07:30 09:30  11:30 12:00 12:30 13:10  15:30 16:00  17 17 18 18 19 21 21 22  j o g and f r e e  time  S3-Farm SGI TA2 TA3 H2  S3-Farm SGI SG2 TA2 TA3 H2  R3-Hike SGI CTA R  Free time Dinner Free time Songs and s t o r i e s i n t h e o l d s c h o o l h o u s e Pioneer c r a f t s I c e cream, s o n g s and s t o r i e s Wash,brush t e e t h , f r e e t i m e Bed and l i g h t s o u t  15 30 00 30 00 00 :30 :00  DAY 3 B r e a k f a s t , make bag l u n c h e s , f r e e time Structured recreation Rl-Bees R2-Gold SG2 SGI TA2 TA3  07:00 09:45  In displayed  the  up, c l e a n  cabins  and  R3-Hike SG3 CTA R Work c l e a r i n g r o c k s o f f t r a i l s on t h e s i t e L u n c h and t r y t h e p h y s i c a l c h a l l e n g e c o u r s e Bus l o a d e d and d e p a r t u r e Break and j o g t o f a l l s A r r i v e back a t s c h o o l  11:00 11:30 12:00 13:15 14:20  the  pack  '  t e r m s o f t h e o b j e c t i v e s and c r i t e r i a i n Appendix  D, b o t h  applicable criteria. conduct  What  of the t e a c h e r s  o f Vogan  t e a c h e r s were j u d g e d follows i s a brief  during  the course  to  (1970) a s have  met  d e s c r i p t i o n of  of the r e s i d e n t i a l  34  outdoor  program. T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n ,  logistical  description  correspondence criteria  o f Vogan  Both  had  met  and  dress  had  pants,  followed  when a c t i v i t i e s However,  taken  Teachers personal  groups.  share  their The  Outdoor  same  the d i s t r i c t  site  Outdoor  and  situation  The t i m e t a b l e and  reported  roughly,  but  Discrepancies  shorter  than  to the a c t u a l  free  were v e r y  They  songs  recreation/free etc.)  activities  the  was  time  strictly  to  time  allow  to  not  occurred  anticipated.  r e q u i r e d f o r an  the  planned  for  time  individual  provided.  teachers  participated  or  in  to the  setting  schedule.  adhering  open w i t h  needs also  own p e r s o n a l  new  with  the  staff.  schedule  was g i v e n  thoughts,  small  foregoing  study  courses  with  etc.).  planned  Sufficient was  the  documents  this  students  trip  boots,  ran longer  r a t h e r than  interests  All  or  this  observed  the  priority  structure.  reading,  in  read  planned  a b o v e was t h e a c t u a l  group  used  was a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e  clothes,  activity  program,  c o o r d i n a t o r and o n - s i t e  Their  exactly  the  They had p r e v i o u s l y t a k e n  Education  (older  program  with  (1970).  teachers  Education. and  of the  of  coupled  time  students,  experiences  encouraged thoughts.  encouraged and  students  individually '  to  They  carried  teach  students  in  to join  student  activites  were  very  them a n d t h e  on  their  them.  organized telling,  student  to  -  p u r s u i t s ( j o g g i n g , photography, students  sharing  i n d i v i d u a l s or  '  t h e c a n , arm w r e s t l i n g , j o k e  the study  often  with  students  stories.  and e n c o u r a g e d  wtih  (kick  and  the  own  knitting, They games  also and  etc.).  oriented  with  35  very  little  confined the  teacher  to reading  interference.  Required  r e c i p e s . Any o t h e r  w r i t t e n work was l e f t  o p t i o n of the student. T r a d i t i o n a l  were  relaxed  and  responsibility  and d e c i s i o n  A careful Vogan's  emphasis  study  (1970)  was  to  rules  and r o u t i n e s  on  individual  placed  making.  criteria,  (1970)  school  of t h e f o r e g o i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s ,  were met t o a r e a s o n a b l y Vogan's  w r i t t e n work was  i n terms  of  r e v e a l s that the a p p l i c a b l e c r i t e r i a  high degree  criteria  do  serve  by bo th  t e a c h e r s , and  v  to  that  d e s c r i b e the treatment  adequately.  Instruments Interaction An  Process  understanding  teacher-student nature  of  people  Analysis  agreed  that  factors  with  factors.  relationships  human  interact  of the development  or  social  perceptions  and  process,  through  individuals'  interaction  being  Combs and Snygg  inferred  Overt  fabric  Murphy  with  the  of  the  of which  (1960) results  behavior  perceptions  one  is  It  is  most  human  of  of the  generally by d i v e r s e  fundamental  o u t when t h e y  identify  and  a s a w h o l e : how  i s controlled  (1957) p o i n t t h i s  i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior  person's  relations  a s i n d i v i d u a l s and a s g r o u p s .  man's  Solley  r e q u i r e s some u n d e r s t a n d i n g  interpersonal  "perceptions are the very made".  of s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r  state:  relations  perception  perception  are a s an  observable  and t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f b e h a v i o r . therefore  underlying  his  an or  indicator her  of  a  interpersonal  relat ions. An  examination  of  the  teacher's  relationship  with  the  36 students  then  d e p e n d s upon an  perceptions students'  of  the  teacher,  personalities,  interpersonal Interaction  understanding  Process  including  social  interactions  the  the  (IPA)  as  the  interpersonal  perceptions  g r o u p s and  within  Analysis  of  of  the  s t r u c t u r e of  the  class.  The  developed  by  methods  Bales  of  (1970)  /  allows  examination  each o t h e r .  The  interpersonal  of  perceptions  methods may  a l s o be  relationship  that used  perceptions  g r o u p members f o r m  for e l i c i t i n g  the  of  group  o f g r o u p members.  The i n t e r p r e t i v e and d i a g n o s t i c t h e o r y ( o f I n t e r a c t i o n Process Analysis) takes the form of a threedimensional spatial model which may be used to visualize and describe the positions of the participants in a group, and to i n f e r what t h e i r r e l a t i o n s with each other are likely to be (Bales, 1970, p.vi). These  methods u t i l i z e  question  instrument,  or  Items a r e  'no'.  leading scores  to  items  then  three  represent  Expected  the  scores a  can  proximity  m e a s u r e s between  Any  one  individual  the  be  predicted  form can  be  within  the used  of  f o r m . An some  comprehension  the  problems w i t h  parallel  items  can the  of  then  'yes' keys,  the  These  be  group.  space.  inferred  s p a c e , and  by  the  interpersonal  positions  and  s u b j e c t i v e impressions  group • can the  be  it.ems  redundancy a  answered  developed  relative  to give  impressions  possible  twenty-six  individuals.  and  examination  to  a  three-dimensional  through  characteristics  reliability  original  individual  t o be  e a c h member of  in  the  f o r m s of  which are  personality characteristics  networks  indicated  parallel  according  for  point  of  one  of  scored  location  than  three  few  collected  items. from  structure,  but  e n h a n c e d by  using  of  the  and Appendix  the  three  of the  more  three  forms  possibly  some  A contains f o r m s , and  the keys  37  for  scoring. For  of  the  three  purposes  parallel  possibility  of  items  marked  the  are  items  was  i n the  answered  deleted  asterisk  "yes"  a  or  on  mini-computer  the  The  i n Appendix  A.  form of by  used  of  screen  and  u s e d by  the  to  the  the  study  instrument  identified  Bales,  student the "D"  "U"  in  score  Scores  identical  was  "D"  "B"  each  to on  items.  A  keyboard listing  scored  13  an  was  of  the  Appendix  according  As  and  to to  "B",  the the "N",  example;  if  was  "yes"  and  the  1 p o i n t was  added  to  student  and  were s c o r e d ,  obtained and  category  computer  student.  then  instructions  "F",  categories  DB,  the  an  1 p o i n t was  added  key  t o h i s or  category.  a l l items  according  values.  the  i n the  was  of  questions  instrument  "D",  A to q u e s t i o n  "yes"  the  "U",  for student  After  the  order  for  point  response  score  teacher  one  f o r each  her  The  adding  appropriate  score  the  by  was  as  A's  for  i s included in  and/or  13  in  the  score  for question  set  eliminated  fifty-two  the  to present  student's  the  compensate  problems.  "no"  responses  program  k e y e d a n s w e r s as  was  video  the  item  "P"  to  from each  group.  record  Each  question  t o s t a n d a r d i z e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of  the q u e s t i o n s to  one  mentioned an  II mini-computer  used  was  above with  study,  randomized producing  In o r d e r APPLE  this  items  the  w h i c h were t o be student  of  the  by "D"  the  t a k i n g the score  whichever  and  was  "F"  or  "B"  and  manner. As  an  example;  absolute  score  larger or  "N"  i f student  for  difference  a s s i g n i n g the  the "P"  summary  of  between  label  the  two  each  "U"  or  absolute  were o b t a i n e d A ended w i t h  in  an  scores  38  of  "U"=24, "D"=12, "F"=34,  her  summary  In Bales,  s c o r e would be  '  321  34F-2B=  20P-16N=  order  t o use  maximum s c o r e of  final  from  scores  32F/2= 16F,  simple  and  location  inferred  individual's  component h a v i n g should  not  ignored  for interpretive  student  A's  and  summary  "F"  recommendation Probable then  be  be  and  score  no  coalitions,  identified  by  beginning category score  from and  i n the  calculated  the  working "U" by  than  direction.  o b t a i n i n g the  score  used  to  as  described  directional  recommends t h a t numeric  significant the above only  the  and  less  should  combination  isolates  Distances  root  were  higest score towards  between of  the  were  i n c l o s e enough  Bales,  individual  of  follows Bales'  l e a d e r s , and  by  be  since  interpreted.  were  any  value  example,  T h i s study  the  to  plot  t h r e e was  with  square  6U,  space.  members who  each  The  corresponding  significant  as d i r e c t e d  individual through  labels  2P,  two.  assigned a  from  In  by  values  12U/2=  individuals  networks,  proximity.- These c o n n e c t i o n s ,  numerical  of  interpreted.  connecting  a  then  group  16F  less  yielding  w h i c h were t h e n  considered  6U  form  be:  a corresponding  s c o r e was  by  then  score. Bales  purposes.  would  was  and  w i t h i n the  directional  "U"  values  described  were d i v i d e d  student  directions  of  three  ;  as  the  example w o u l d  Each  components  than  item  insturment  characteristics  (1970) were t h e n the  26  given d i r e c t i o n ,  three numerical  personality  h i s or  f o l l o w s : 24U-12D= 12U  techniques  single  item  4P/2= 2P.  individual's  Bales  a  previous  coordinates  The by  of  on  52  i n our  as  interpretive  i n any  the  and  consisting  the  the  18  calculated  "N"=16 t h e n  4P  which a r e based  obtained  "B"=2, "P"=20, and  i n the the  of  "D"  highest  individuals sum  made  the  were three  squared is  algebraic  the  three  hypotenuse A' s  differences  dimensional  score  was 1U 2B 3N t h e n  matching c o o r d i n a t e s .  equivalent  of a r i g h t - a n g l e d  summary  between  triangle.  of  calculating  As an example;  was 60* 16F 2N a n d s t u d e n t  the d i s t a n c e  between  them  This the  i f student  B's summary  would be  score  calculated  /  as  (. The  follows: Student A 6U 16F 2N Student B 1U 2B 3N Difference 5 18 1 5X5 + 18X18 + 1X1 = 25 + 324 + 1 = 350 S q u a r e r o o t o f 350 i s 18.71 distance  units. 18.  Note  If  placing  that  the  difference  between  student  the a l g e b r a i c  scores  would  of s t u d e n t  have  had  A  difference  been  been  and  14.  A and s t u d e n t  16F  and  Figure B within  student  B i s then  between 2F t h e n 3.1  18.71  16F a n d 2B  the a l g e b r a i c  illustrates  the s p a t i a l  model.  U  B  P  Figure  is  3.1: G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n o f t h e A p p l i c a t i o n o f IPA D a t a t o Two S t u d e n t s .  the  40  Bales  provides  regarding  the  distance  between  coalition. group 18  individuals  sets this  space. an  estimated  example  was  and  is  estimate  In t h e c a s e  previous 18.71  empirically  derived  e s t i m a t i o n of a c u t - o f f  He  yielding  an  the  of  point  too  58%  cut-off  be  judged  which  infer  the  thumb  a  the  probable  r a d i u s of  the  t h e maximum r a d i u s  distance  d i s t a n c e between  t h e r e f o r e would  of  study,  of  beyond  f a r to  t o be  this  rule  of  10.44.  student t o be  A and  too  was  In  our  student  far to  infer  B a  coalition. Following of  connection  coalitions,  identified. members  the  individual  probable  leaders  T h o s e members who  of  identified  of  the as  above  g r o u p were  the  had  no  p o i n t s t o form and  isolates  connections  identified  as  were  carried  out  were  with  isolates.  t e r m i n a l u p p e r members o f a  procedures  networks  any  then other  Leaders  network.  precisely  were  All  of  as  Bales  a  valid  recommends. Bales  contends  source  of  group  space.  from  only  that  subjective  information He one  on  suggests source  to the  p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e  with  residential  procedures  of  IPA,  indicate  their  groupings  and  not or  then actual  information  be  which t o p l o t  that  will  the  use  b i a s and  single  outdoor the  impressions  of  programs  information  perceptions  of  individuals subjective  distort  source.  If  they  student  student  coalitions, can  only  networks, be  used  impressions according  the  modified  should  personalities,  used  isolates  to estimate  the  teachers - involved  provide  These  actual  within  t h e model  complete  interpersonal behavior. to estimate  are  perceptions personality" and the  then social should traits  leaders. perceptions  The the  41  individual  teacher  interpersonal above  reflect the  or  then  social  the teacher's  or  very  reading  suitable  study;  not  reflect  of the student  class  from t h e  the  any one s t u d e n t  teacher's  actual  but i t does  at the  perceptions  seemed  highly  however, t h e i t e m s  and c o m p r e h e n s i o n  f o r probing  and  time  student  level.  of s t u d e n t s ,  suited used  by IPA have a  As s u c h ,  perceptions  f o r the  t h e IPA  instrumentation  f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n to the students  required.  Details  methodology  Teacher  Pupi1 R e l a t i o n s h i p  In of the  order  Teacher This  in  the f i e l d  Heine  to  relationship.  t o an i d e a l  According relationship as  the  twenty  perceptions  to  the teacher,  items  of  by F i e d l e r  which  perception  the study  utilized  o f an i n v e n t o r y  developed  Inventory.  the nature  were  form was  used  by  of the t h e r a p i s t - p a t i e n t Heine's  instrument  were  (1950) and were p o s t u l a t e d most  conducive  and  least  therapist-patient relationship.  Lewis,  Lovell  between a s t u d e n t  ideal  of the students'  where t h e f i r s t  determine  f r o m an i n v e n t o r y  to present conducive  The  follow.  i s an a d a p t a t i o n  of psychotherapy  (1950)  derived  with  Pupi1 R e l a t i o n s h i p instrument  was  Inventory  t o examine t h e n a t u r e  h i s or her r e l a t i o n s h i p  was  of the t e a c h e r , and  alternate  of t h i s  of  instrument.  Analysis  this  of  perception  Process  of  may  position  the  purposes  personalities  The i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d  considering  Interaction  high  student  may  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the When  not  of  relationships.  procedures  character  has  and J e s s e e  and t e a c h e r  psychotherapeutic  (1965), t h e i d e a l  i s very  relationship.  much t h e same The  writers  42  conclude  that,  unique  to  "...the  therapy  relationships et are  embodied  Appendix reflect  i n the  B.  The  The  was  researchers received  In  the  by  the  low  used  by  Knoblock  shortened  and  the wording  elementary  elementary  and  coefficients  administered  the  peer form.  teacher  to students  scores  correlated  T h i s seems  of  the  indicative  be  same of a  than  renamed  used  scores  scores  the  Reading  were  1971.  The  of  items  the  but  further  teacher  items  relatively  high  for  recalculated  of  the  they  rating  scores obtained using  were  suitable  r e p o r t e d . However, when  with  than  Skills.  t o make them more  0.72  the  and A r i t h m e t i c  co-workers  f o r the purpose  a  et a l . , 1965).  were  improved  on  formula,  TPRI  total  of B a s i c  in  based  Further,  (Lewis  readability  were not  form  ratings  his  and  with high  Iowa T e s t  to  to  20  (1965).  scores"  tests  The  modified  instrument  achievement-test  simplified  students appeared  the  al  Goldstein  students.  reliability  teacher,  the  graders  by L e w i s and  in  (TPRI).  Usage, A r i t h m e t i c C o n c e p t s ,  modified  for  psychotherapy,  of  TPRI  listed  in education, rather  et  achievement  Word  items  were t h e n  by  higher  (Lewis  relationship  r e s e a r c h e r s as  in  "...sixth  interpersonal  ideal  Ruder-Richardson  Problem S o l v i n g s u b t e s t s of the The  this  Heine  Lewis  i s not  g o a l of t h e r a p y "  of  the  in  u s i n g the  students with  Comprehension,  of  reliability  that  significantly  study,  elements  relationships  of  0.75  found  those  stated  R e l a t i o n s h i p Inventory  fives,  as  have a  used  relationship  matched  relationships  coefficient  of g r a d e  be  statements items  Pupi1  given  did  not  teacher-student  Teacher  sample  do  therapeutic  can  essential  therapist-patient the  but  that  a l . , 1 9 6 5 ) . The  good  a  from  original  reliability  for  43  the  new  pupil  form of the TPRI. A copy of the  three forms i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix Since the m o d i f i e d rapid  scores on the  B.  instrument  administration  to  instrument  is  short  elementary have  items used on a l l  and  suitable  students,  been  shown  and  to  for  s i n c e the  be  related  to  /  academic achievement, the the  present  student  study.  outdoor  the programs. On used  in  this  according  items appear to  to  teachers  these grounds, a m o d i f i e d study  A critical its suitability  to  indicate  factor  in u t i l i z i n g  this  reliabilities  were  calculated  original  form and  no new  teacher.  reliability  properties  had  changes  in  instrument.  an For  to  elementary  form.  be estimated,  attempt  to  However, s i n c e the  using  KR-20  wording  r a t h e r than were  of  Since  psychometric  example, s i n c e the study  i s concerned  r e l a t i o n s h i p with  was  references  of  the  with  the  their  was  to  teacher  administered,  a l t e r e d to r e f l e c t  the past tense and a l l  reworded to "my  anchored by  new  reliability  items  the the  present teacher  t e a c h e r " . A l s o , a four p o i n t L i k e r t  " s t r o n g l y agree"  and  the  psychometric  the  the  on  c o e f f i c i e n t s were r e p o r t e d  the exact p o i n t i n time when the instrument  the  is  the r e s e a r c h e r a l s o made some  improve  students' p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e i r  students'  perceptions  the m o d i f i e d form, t h i s study a l s o examined the the  was  study  f o r d e t e c t i n g r e a l change i n student  reported  of  in  teacher.  the TPRI i n  the  at  form of the TPRI  r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the  with  properties  reflect  involved  the nature of the  relationship  for  their  the  programs, show mar.ked change as a r e s u l t of  p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e i r  of  appeared to be s u i t a b l e f o r  Furthermore,  perceptions that,  residential  instrument  "strongly disagree",  was  scale, used  44  as  a  response  mode  in  an A  Appendix Each  agree)  his score  to of  than  the  original  increase  the  items  the  used  "yes-no"  response  sensitivity  in this  of  study  the  i s included  C.  with  or  copy  item  student's  rather  attempt  instrument. in  format  was  scored  scoring  total her  score  item  ranging  1  on  (strongly disagree) negative  was  polarity  obtained  s c o r e s . Each  through  student  f r o m a p o s s i b l e low  of  20  to  4  items  reversed.  simple  then  had  to a  (strongly A  addition a single  possible  of  total  high  of  80. Students considered teacher. teacher  receiving  A  p e r c e p t i o n of  was  indicated  was  instrument  had  major  t o be  Students  retain  relationships  by  was  sample  intermediate  of  alterations the  response  reliability The  from  the  interest  in  this  study,  time  given  no  was  lower  contact  stable  using  mainland  with  the  using  of  of  their of  wording  of  same  the  procedures vacation.  using  British  teachers  summer  the  the  student  stability  to estimate  i n August  outdoor  in  their  consistency  instrument  area  change  with  such,  on  internal  conducted  no  test-retest  students  the  the  therefore  perceptions  t e a c h e r s . As  were a l s o r e - e x a m i n e d of  relationship  residential  format,  were  with  the  a l s o been made t o t h e  piloting  properties  relationship  of  estimated  had  instrument  period  having  instrument  the  score.  s t a b l e over  their  on  a more n e g a t i v e  relatively  with  score  positive  a low  the,time  of  perceptions. should  high  t o p e r c e i v e a more  Change o v e r program  a  on  a  Since  t h e -items measures  and of  sample. its  a sample  Columbia  psychometric of  students  attending  a  45  summer  camp. A l l s t u d e n t s  normally  locations  but  attended  teachers.  The  male-female  g r a d e and  age  are  various ratio  and  illustrated  G r o u p by  10  11  AGE 12  13  14  15  1 0 1  6 7 13  12 11 23  5 7 12  6 8 14  3 3 6  0 1 1  Sex  and  the  was  time  do the  change  with  9 14 23  day  days  later.  by  8  9  12 8 20  2 3 5  0 1 1  6 9 15  by  of camp and  during  at  the  such,  camp. As  Students'  and  first  and  scores  on  by  3.4.  Age  Total 33 37 70  Grade  Total 33 37 70  on  the  the  teacher  they  camp d u r i n g  last  were i n s t r u c t e d  the  p e r c e p t i o n of  the  group  day  spent  camp, or had t h e r e was  their second the  no  most  anything reason  referent  of  to respond  1979-80 s c h o o l y e a r . None o f  in attendance  between  again  Students  the  and  s u p e r v i s o r s at  c o n s i d e r i n g the  students'  instrument.  4 2 6  Sex  GRADE 7 6  administered  with  were  5  first  instrument  teachers  that  the  nine  their  to  test  4  the  3.4  G r o u p by  Pilot  different  3.3  9  Male Female TOTAL  camp,  3,3  Pilot  of  semi-urban  had  of  Composition  or  t h e makeup of  in Tables  Table  on  and  Composition  Male Female Total  lunch  i n urban  schools  Table  The  lived  to  teacher  to  of  these  at  a l l  believe would  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s of  TPRI were e x p e c t e d  to  the  remain  46  constant  between a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s .  Item a n a l y s i s s t a t i s t i c s from  the  results  Correlations and  obtained  using  79.  calculated  of s e x , g r a d e and age  scores,  The  were  and i n t e r n a l  consistency  using with  measures  t h e LERTAP  the  package.  individual  betwen p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t i n d i v i d u a l  total  scores  were  t h e CORN p r o g r a m .  r a n g e on t h e p r e t e s t was f r o m a low o f 29 t o a h i g h  The mean was 53.66 and t h e s t a n d a r d  internal  consistency  reliability,  procedure,  was  a  .89, w i t h  standard  of  d e v i a t i o n was 12.25. The as  estimated  error  of  by  Hoyt's  measurement  of  3.92. On t h e p o s t t e s t t h e r a n g e was f r o m a low o f 27 t o a h i g h o f 76.  The mean was 52.11 a n d t h e s t a n d a r d  internal error  o f measurement The  between change of  reliability  scores  stability,  and  as e s t i m a t e d  posttest  scores,  scores  was  -1.55 w i t h  In a d d i t i o n , t h e i n s t r u m e n t  effects  was  was from a low o f -14 t o a h i g h  change  throughout  was a g a i n  the  range  f o r extreme  Correlations  of  appeared  scores  over  fact  with  some c o n c e r n .  standard  correlation  .88. The r a n g e o f o f +12.  The  mean  d e v i a t i o n of  t o be e q u a l l y  stable  no n o t i c a b l e r e g r e s s i o n  o f age and g r a d e w i t h  individual  p r o p e r t i e s of the i n s t r u m e n t  that  a  scores.  t h e age and g r a d e The  by t h e  a standard  were n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t , l e a d i n g t h e r e s e a r c h e r psychometric  .89 w i t h  o f 3.77.  test-retest pretest  the  3.96.  consistency  d e v i a t i o n was 11.86. The  range of t h e p i l o t  t h e r e was a mean c h a n g e  The t - v a l u e  for  that  total  scores  to b e l i e v e that the  are r e l a t i v e l y  stable  group. score  difference,  o f -1.55 was o f as  calculated  47  applying and  the  test  S t a n l e y , 1970),  Since  the change  fact  had  pilot  data,  to  from  than  pretest  expected  their  of  this  the of  this  be  t o the  instrument  and  was  attributable type  of  to the  problem  for this  is  to  altered.  Examination  used  the  t o compare  warranted  in light  coefficient, necessary  on  that, second  groups of  the  of  the  student be  lower  investigate  to a  combination required  format.  carried  the  items  good  to  by  Further  out  i n the  investigate  t o two  f o r the the  sensitization tendency  administration,  high  used  instrument  d e s p i t e the  in this  the  indicating  in this  Based suitable  on  be  i t e m s c o r e s between  of the type  concluded  on  phenomenon.  a d m i n i s t e r the  of  be  this  to  judgements  response  should  where t h e o r d e r o f  to a detection  lower  in  however,  groups  score  change  I t may,  problem  was  Based  made  attempt  example o f a s t u d y w h i c h m i g h t  It  no  study.  direct  assigned  lead  i n the  given  .001.  significant,  s c o r e s . No  to account  An  is  s c o r e s would  investigation future  account  that,  (Glass  i s s i g n i f i c a n t , a t p. =  to p o s t t e s t  into  samples  teachers, posttest  result.  items  which  pretest  students' s e n s i t i z a t i o n  the  be  -3.50  taken  i t was of  this  was  be  perceptions  of  between means u s i n g d e p e n d e n t  the  two  randomly  groups groups  is  could  suggested. for students instrument  to  could  study. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n appears pretest-posttest  stability  over  correlation  the  time  period  study. results  of  this  p s y c h o m e t r i c a i l y f o r the  pilot  t h e TPRI a p p e a r e d  purposes  of  this  study.  to  be  48 Design  of  the  Since  randomization  impossible, of  Study  Design  Campbell  study.  before then  and  Stanley in  the  the  residential  took  part with  then  following  in  the  the  experimental  classes  d a y s t h a t t h e TPRI was  control  group  treatment  classes  the  TPRI  at  the  p r o g r a m . The  program  while  normal  again  residential  treatments  employed  in their  posttested,  and  (1963) was  outdoor  school  subjects  non-equivalent  were p r e t e s t e d u s i n g  proceeded were  10,- t h e  A l l students  classes  of  completed  administered  comparison two  experimental  the  I PA  days  classes  comparison c l a s s e s  TPRI  experience. the  and  f.ashion. A l l f o u r  using  outdoor  design  to s t r u c t u r e the  same t i m e ,  the  was  on  classes  the  Monday  Teachers  in  the  i n f o r m a t i o n on  the  same  t o the  students.  S p e c i f i c P r o b l e m _# 1. 1. What  effect  outdoor  does  p r o g r a m have on  relationships On problem,  the the  participation  with  the  in  students'  a  residential  p e r c e p t i o n s of  their  teacher?  b a s i s of what has  been p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d a b o u t  following research hypothesis  was  deemed w o r t h y  the of  investigation: If  intermediate  residential in  this  outdoor  study,;  relationships positive The H0.1:  grade  program  then  with  direction  students  as  d e s c r i b e d as  their  their  identified  statistical  With  to  the  perceptions  teacher  corresponding regard  participate  by  will the  hypotheses  students'  in  a  treatment of  their  change  in a  TPRI. t o be  perception  of  tested are: their  49  relationship  with  significant  difference  treatment not  measured  to  by  the  With  treatment  measured  by  the TPRI  on  their  teacher, between  modified  outdoor  covariance the  using  to test  pretest  as  covariate  a  suitable  will  be a  mean  for  outdoor  the group  program,  o f t h e TPRI  as  following  ^  program.  for  variable,  group w i l l  be  "the  outdoor  initial  program.  differences teachers,  described  hypotheses. high  greater  g r o u p a s m e a s u r e d by  of t h e i r  as  the s t a t i s t i c a l  and the dependent  as  their  f o r the comparison  form  perceptions  covariate,  group  of  t h e p r e t e s t a s t h e c o v a r i a t e and  dependent  employed  there  .the  residential  compensate  student  the  program,  perception  mean o f t h e c o m p a r i s o n  to  for  o f t h e TPRI f o l l o w i n g  f o l l o w i n g the r e s i d e n t i a l  In o r d e r groups  outdoor  students'  The mean o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  the  other  the  residential  than  as  a  mean  be no  f o r the comparison  form  g r o u p a n d t h e mean to  will  program.  difference  exposed  the  modified  there  the  residential  to  with  significant  not  between  outdoor  regard  relationship  HI.2:  a  residential  Hl.l:  teacher,  g r o u p a n d t h e mean  exposed  the  their  In  posttest  (1968),  was  employing  the  between  the  correlation  v a r i a b l e was r e c o g n i z e d .  c o v a r i a t e was a v a i l a b l e  a n a l y s i s of  the  in Kirk  between  However, no  t o the r e s e a r c h e r .  50  Spec i f i c P r o b l e m 2.  What  is  #_ 2  the  perceptions after This  problem  this  how  of  was  a  suited/  had  to  As  such  to  be  in  program?  to  a  test  Problem  #  1,  of  nature  more  of  statistical  little  student  facilitate  the  teacher  characteristics  outdoor  perceptions  order  situation.  change  personality  Specific  in  problem  the  residential  not  teacher  change  of  -student  Unlike  regarding  learning  of  completion  hypotheses.  should  nature  is  known  personalities  a better teaching  of  the  descriptive  and  investigation  of  and  in  analytical  nature. To in  address  teacher  this  perceptions  from  responses  the  teachers.  information  t o the  before  change  both  presented than  teacher's units  noted  and  three  the  description  of  student  of  after  the  residential  the  not an  f o r any  outdoor  notes  be  that  individual  c h a n g e d by  discrepancy  i n p e r c e p t i o n , as  in order  An  or  was  not  analysis  to d e t e c t  outdoor  student  changed the  t h a t change difference  of  noted  indicated  presented.  the  more t h a n  was  This  interpretive these  specific  changes  trends.  by I PA  was  a  Bales'  was  label  the  three  and by  was less  i n t e r p r e t e d , t h e r e f o r e where  the  whether  of  any  the  change  the  experience,  interpretation  direction  changed.  undertaken  A n a l y s i s instrument  and  label  change  determined  complete  (1970) p e r s o n a l i t y t y p o l o g i e s , regardless  as  to  residential  u n i t s should  of  personalities  the  asked  interpretive  and  made o f  were  discussed. Bales  any  a n a l y s i s was  I n t e r a c t i o n Process  the  perception  in  an  students'  before  to a f t e r  was  of  Teachers  p r o g r a m . Wherever from  problem  for  done the then  51  S p e c i f i c Problem # 3 3. What  is  the  nature  of  the  change  in  teacher  p e r c e p t i o n s of the i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s  within  a  outdoor  class  after  completion  of  a residential  program? T h i s problem i s s i m i l a r I t s examination To  was  i n nature  to S p e c i f i c Problem #  again d e s c r i p t i v e and a n a l y t i c  examine t h i s problem an a n a l y s i s was  i n form.  made of the change  in teacher p e r c e p t i o n s of i n t e r p e r s o n a l .. r e l a t i o n s from  the I n t e r a c t i o n Process A n a l y s i s responses  Using  the p l o t s  Question  #2,  isolates  were  residential  of  the  perceived  outdoor  of  group  these changes was these and  changes  for  program. and  second  both Any  The  from  Specific  and~  discrepancy  estimates  of  leaders  and  after  the  between  the  the - t e a c h e r s '  noted and  educational  inferred teacher.  networks, before  as  of the  -obtained  i n t e r a c t i o n s was  described.  was  space  coalitions,  identified  a n a l y s e s of the f i r s t perceptions  group  2.  the nature  significance  of of  e x p l o r e d using B a l e s ' theory of p e r s o n a l i t y  i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior.  52  CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF THE STUDY  Spec i f i c  P r o b l e m #_ 1  For  the  hypotheses H0.1:  convenience  to  be  With  tested  regard  relationship significant treatment not  the  relationship significant treatment  the HI.2:  the  TPRI  Scoring out  using  a  the  of the  student LERTAP  measures c o n f i r m e d t h a t the pilot  TPRI  instrument  study.  As an e x a m p l e ,  no  for  the group as  following  for  the  of  their  will  mean  be  for  comparison  outdoor the  a the  group  program,  TPRI  as  following  program. group w i l l g r o u p as  residential  computer  in a  TPRI  the  form of  responses  the  be  program,  there  between  comparison  f o l l o w i n g the  their  comparison  perception  teacher,  experimental  the  mean  the  residential  outdoor  of  will  outdoor  students'  by t h e m o d i f i e d  mean of  the  below:  program.  their  to  for  statistical  restated  the  form of  g r o u p and t h e mean  " T h e mean of the  to  are  there  residential  outdoor  with  residential  than  mean  the  perception  between  difference  exposed  measured  a  regard  analysis  teacher,  by t h e m o d i f i e d  With  not  their  to  reader,  students'  g r o u p and t h e  residential  Hl.l:  to  with  the  in this  difference  exposed  measured  of  and  similar  reliabilities  were  Internal  responded to  to  the  were  by  program.  item a n a l y s i s  manner  greater  measured  outdoor  package.  subjects  be  the  carried  consistency items  subjects  in  calculated  of the for  53  each  administration  resulting  internal  of  the  instrument  consistency  Means a n d s t a n d a r d  measures  t o each c l a s s  ranging  deviations obtained  for  e a c h a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e TPRI a r e d i s p l a y e d  Table  Class  Experimental Experimental Comparison Comparison  The TPRI,  treating  homogeneity computer to  A B C D  scores  homogeneity  a  each c l a s s of  of  Analysis  a  MULTIVARIANCE covariate-  and  treatment computer the  as  were  then  using  the  calculated was 1.164  was  the  OWMAR  corresponding  were  the d e s i g n ,  classes  performed, using  r e g r e s s i o n was c a r r i e d  was  2.876 c o r r e s p o n d i n g  performed  are displayed  t h e MULTIVARIANCE  of  was  on  in Table  a n a l y s i s the t e s t  o u t . The F - r a t i o ,  t o p = .0416. T h i s  the  the  as the  adjusted  4.2.  f o r equal  the t e s t would  that  tenable.  p r o g r a m . The p r e t e s t was e m p l o y e d  analysis  for  Bartlett-Box  l e d to the c o n c l u s i o n  initially  conditions,  tested  by  of v a r i a n c e - c o v a r i a n c e using  6.25 8.87 8.23 10.51  on e a c h a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e  o f .28. T h i s  means. The r e s u l t s  During  f o r the TPRI.  8.13 10.55 7.97 8.71  group,  test  of c o v a r i a n c e ,  within  4.1.  66.62 60.64 52.43 59.57  as  of homogeneity  i n Table  on  64.42 58.36 56.67 62.52  variance-covariance  level  class  Posttest Mean St.Dev.  p r o g r a m . The c a l c u l a t e d F - r a t i o  assumptions  posttest  Deviations  student  dispersion  each  Pretest Mean St.Dev.  26 14 21 23  f o r each  probability  nested  n  .74 t o .90.  4.1  C l a s s Means and S t a n d a r d  Treatment Condition  from  with the  slopes  statistic,  suggest  that  54  Table Analysis  Source  the one  of  the  slopes  underlying  c o n s e q u e n c e s of studied  and  referenced that  assumptions  analysis  "As  the  differed  in  degree  of  with  respect  particularly  when t h e  position  c o n s e q u e n c e s of of  regression  on  this  the  with  with  1972)  studies  violation  slopes  taken  of  will  the  been  Peckham  Peckham  above  not  was  increased  the  t o making a  Type  recent  robustness the  study  Glass,  in t h i s  was  found  to the  where  i s not  study  assumption  probably  have  This  of  of The  from homogeneity  from h o m o g e n e i t y  matter  by  respect  respect  conclusions  departure  study  heterogeneity  Sanders,  the  covariance.  (1972).  t o c o v a r i a t e means. A  confirm  a violation  assumption  departure  quasi-experimental  (1980) seems t o  The  this  became more c o n s e r v a t i v e  even  equal:  a n a l y s i s of  Sanders  where t h e  I e r r o r . " ( G l a s s , Peckham and held  not  i s robust  <.1791 <.0001  1.7582 22.3018  unpublished  Peckham and  particularly  extreme.  of  A 1968  covariance  of  P  F  2525.39 72.49 919.44 41.23  violation  Glass,  a n a l y s i s of  violation, not  the  Table.  Square  were p r o b a b l y  reported.  by  Mean  1 2 1 79  Groups  regression  Covariance  df  of V a r i a t i o n  Covariate Classes within Treatment Residual  of  4.2  of  groups by et  Levy al.,  extreme.  i s that  the  homogeneity  lead  to  spurious  significant differences. Since  the  consequences, data and  was the  violation should  a l s o analyzed perspective  of  be  of  an  a matter  from  the  assumption, of c o n c e r n  perspective  a n a l y s i s of  despite  to the  of  residuals.  reader,  repeated The  the the  measures  results  of  55  these  two f u r t h e r Referring  groups  term  treatment  analyses  back  to  are presented Table  i s not s i g n i f i c a n t , conditions,  favor  significant,  program  In  order  examination  program  examination the nested  the e f f e c t  hypothesis  F.  the c l a s s e s w i t h i n  of  of  the  factor, the  HI.1. There  simple  was deemed  treatment  of h y p o t h e s i s  between c l a s s e s w h i c h p a r t i c i p a t e d  outdoor  adjusted  since  leading to rejection  of the a l t e r n a t i v e  difference  an  collapsing  a p p r o p r i a t e . As c a n be s e e n , highly  4.2,  i n Appendix  is a  in  was  H0.1 i n  significant  a  residential  and c l a s s e s w h i c h d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e . to  of  test  adjusted  posttest  hypothesis posttest  means,  as  HI.2,  means  calculation  and  required.  The  was  calculated  by t h e MULTIVARIANCE  were: E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p Mean = 63.048 C o m p a r i s o n G r o u p Mean = 56.578  Since the v  comparison  tenable. than  the adjusted experimental g r o u p mean,  The e x p e r i m e n t a l  the comparison With  both  statistical  classes,  statistical  hypotheses  corresponding  intermediate  grade  students  described  perceptions  of  change  in  a  judged  t o be  as  their positive  confirmed.  the  higher  i n the p o s t u l a t e d  the  treatment  relationships direction  higher  the  average  direction. and  HI.2  being  hypothesis,  in a residential in this  with  than  HI.2 was h e l d  on  HI.1  research  participate  is  hypothesis  c l a s s e s scored  confirmed,  program  g r o u p mean  study,  their  as i d e n t i f i e d  if  outdoor  then  their  teacher - w i l l by t h e T P R I , i s  56  Spec i f i c P r o b l e m  #_ 2  R e s p o n s e s made by t h e t e a c h e r s after  the r e s i d e n t i a l  outdoor  APPLE I I m i n i - c o m p u t e r 4.3 and 4.4 g i v e  from  pretest  experimental  scores,  posttest  classes,  experience,  based  upon  Table IPA  Student Number  Pretest Score 3U9P3F 4D8P2B 4D5P3B 8D1P4F 2D8N8B 5D1P2F 0 3P2B 0 8P1B 2U10P1B 3D4P1B 4U7P2F 1D6P0 1U9P3F 5U8P6F 8U6P5F 6D8P1B 1U6P1F 9D7P2F 8D5P1F 09P3F 1U10P2B 2U8P4F •3D3P3F 7D7P1B 7U7P0 1U8P2F  A01 A02 A0.3 A04 A05 A06 A07 A08 A09 A10 All A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 A22 A23 A24 A25 A26  If  interpretive  for  Data  before  and  were s c o r e d u s i n g t h e  and t h e p r o g r a m documented  Tables  to  on t h e I PA, b o t h  i n Appendix E.  labels  individual  and  students  the responses  changes in  the  of the t e a c h e r s .  4.3  for Class A  Interpretive Label  Posttest Score  UPF DP DPB DF NB D P P P DP UP P PF UPF UPF DP P DP DP PF P PF DPF DP UP P  9D3P4F 6D2P4B 7D7P3B 4D3P1B 3D3N0 8D2N1B 2U8P4F 1D6P0 2U12P2F 2D6P2F 1U8P0 1D10P0 2U10P3F 4U3P2F 2D4P1B • 7D12P1B 4D3P1F 9D9P1F 4D9P2F 1U9P4F 4D8P2B 4U12P0 4U9P3F 7D4P0 7U8P2F 4U8P5F  Interpretive Label DPF DB DPB DPB .D D PF P P P P P PF UP P DP DP DP DP PF DP UP UPF DP UP UPF  Pre-Post Change -12,-6,+1 - 2,-6,-2 - 3,+2, 0 + 4,+2,-5 - l,+6,+8 - 3,-3,-3 + 2,+5,+6 - l,-2,+l 0,+2,+3 + l,+2,+3 - 3,+1,-2 0,+4, 0 + 1,+1, 0 + 1,-5,-4 -10,-2,-6 - l,+4, 0 -- 5,-3, 0 0,+2,-l + 4,+4,+l + 1, o , + i - 5,-2, 0 + 2,+4,-4 + 7,+6, 0 0,-3,+l 0,+l,+2 + 3, 0,+3  one e x a m i n e s t h e mean c h a n g e o f s c o r e s on e a c h a x i s  for  Table I PA D a t a  Student Number  Pretest Score  B01 B02 B03 B04 B05 B06 B07 B08 B09 BIO Bll B12 B13 B14  each  teacher,  overall  those  individual  without  the  perception numerous to  significant 3-  students  greater their  than  the t e a c h e r s '  to  not  in interpreting  be  interpretable  of a s h i f t 4.5  There  were,  interpretable according  4.3  label label  and  changes  changes  4.4, in  there Class  in Class  B. In  were A,  3 p o i n t s on a t l e a s t  axis,  interpretive (1970)  one  labels.  Each  descriptions  and  14 3  addition,  i n C l a s s B showed  Bales'  gives  however,  i n C l a s s A and 4 s t u d e n t s  using  i n the  (1970).  from T a b l e s  interpretive  change  d e v i a t i o n s of the changes of  c h a n g e s w h i c h were  interpretive  original  interpreted  -4,+3,-1  did  effects  on e a c h a x i s .  of B a l e s  c a n be seen  +3,-2,+2  of the c l a s s e s as a whole. Table  teacher  individual  0,+l, 0 + 7,+1,-1 -l,+l,+2 0,+2,+l -4,-5,-5 -1,+6,-2 0, 0,-1 -3,+1,-4 0,-2,-1 +6,-2,+1 -l,+2, 0 -2,+4,-1  that  a i d s the researcher  f o r the confounding  of each  significant  classes  c h a n g e s and s t a n d a r d  the procedures As  result  perceptions  mean s c o r e  i t i s obvious  their  Pre-Post Change  DPF DPF PF DPF DN PF UPF DP UPF U DPF DPF UP PF  changes which a r e judged  a concern  teachers'  4.5,  of  This  Interpretive Label  5D8P4F 6U5N6B 2D11P5F 5D9P5F 9D3N2B 2D13P3F 4U12P9F 7D7P2F 6U5P7F 11U2N1B 5D9P5F 6D9P4F 7U7P2F 2D11P7F  Table  perception  significantly.  Posttest Score  -DPF NB PF DPF DF PF UPF DPF UPF U DPF DPF UP PF  in  57  from C l a s s B  Interpretive Label  5D7P4F 1D6N5B 1D10P3F 5D7P4F 5D2P3F 1D7P5F 4U12P10F 4D6P6F 6U7P8F 5U0 2B 4D7P5F 4D5P5F 4U9P0 2U8P8F  4.4  changes  despite  retaining  of t h e s e  cases  of  types.  was  These  58 Table Means and  4.5  Standard D e v i a t i o n s of E a c h T e a c h e r on E a c h  Mean S c o r e  Teacher  Axis  interpretations,  and  diagrams  a r e p r e s e n t e d b e l o w . In t h e  the  perception  p r o g r a m and after  solid  the  lines  teacher p r i o r indicate  A01  changed  of  9D3P4F, t y p e DPF.  task  or  value-oriented  character  traits.  where t h e UPF oriented, a  A01  label.  a  follower  than  of  UPF  drop  slightly a  for  each  indicated  residential  p e r c e p t i o n of  and  strong  outdoor  the  teacher  to group  be  3U9P3F, t y p e UPF,  DPF  on  the  types  on  difference  friendly  between  the  ascendant  t a s k s , t h e DPF  P-N  seem  In  axis  less  The  l e a d e r , than  and  before  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of  the  this  be  and  likeable  types  i s that  leadership  type  i s seen  the  P  or - f r i e n d l y -  seems t o  g r e g a r i o u s , and residential change  to  Student  retaining  t e a c h e r now  friendly  to  addition,  while  to a  and  a gregarious-isolationist  of p e r s o n a l i t y .  as  is  view more  outdoor  presented  4.1.  Student score  to. t h e  more s u b m i s s i v e .  reflects  student  Figure  and  seen  t o be  aspect  dotted lines  a s c o r e of  Both  basic  is  program. A g r a p h i c a l in  from  initiating  and  This axis  unfriendly  of  type  often  follower  The  showed a 6 p o i n t  the  the  changes  —  score  be  figures,  the e x p e r i e n c e . Student  4.06 3.31 3.54 2.81 3.14 2.02  of t h e p o s i t i o n a l  case  of  St.Dev.  Change  -0.84 0.00 + 0.54 + 0.71 -0.12 -0.71  A B A B A B  U-D U-D P-N P-N F-B F-B  S c o r e Changes f o r Axis.  A02  changed  6D2P4B, t y p e DB.  from  a s c o r e of  Type DP  i s seen  4D8P2B, t y p e DP, as c a l m ,  to  a  non-assertive  59  Figure  and  4.1:  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n Regarding Student A01.  friendly  with  a  tendency  l i k e s , pn  the  other  negative  to  leadership  not  now  sees  cooperative  than  representation Student score  of  they  are  both  change  The  of is  this  of,  type  but  must  change  major  as  interpreted  on  less the  T y p e s DF  and  submissive  or  8D1P4F, t y p e  As  the as  w e l l as  U-D a  axis  new  she  DB  and  type  is The  and  less  graphical 4.2. DF,  similar  to in  where  type the  the  and  type  i s responsive  typology  increased  perception  DF  of  the  is to,  change,  4 points.  a  that  non-assertive,  d i f f e r e n c e i s that DP  A  in Figure  are  or  comply.  friendly  DP  he  anxious  to  case.  DP.  the  as  urged  i s presented  inhibited,  that  a u t h o r i t y . The  of  others.  student  seen  from a s c o r e  as  and  is  be  previously  type  seen  DB  student  changed  impersonal  trusting  rating  this  4D3P1B,  conventional. s e e n as  of  A04  this was  the  imitate those  a d v a n c e s and  b l a t a n t l y disobedient  teacher  and  hand,  to  Changes  the This  student  as  60  D  Figure  being  4.2: G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n o f T e a c h e r ' s R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A02. less  total, less  submissive  the teacher submissive  representation Student score  describe The  and  this  D.  self.  The D t y p e  as  less  situation  A  is  social  in that seen  exists.  and  graphical  In  graphical  i n F i g u r e 4.3.  seen  to  t y p e NB,  be  to a  unfriendly,  t o a u t h o r i t y . Words w h i c h a r e u s e d t o  i s , however,  unfriendly  withdrawn.  NB  before. A  of 2D8N8B,  less  o b s t i n a t e and c y n i c a l .  roles  i s one o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t y  i s somewhat s i m i l a r  whatever  a score  to reject  type  of  than  are evasive, stubborn,  i s seen  Insecurity  from  perceived.  as more p e r s o n - o r i e n t e d and  i s presented  Type  resistant  type  previously  the experience  changed  type  been  the student  after  A05  individual  her.  views  had  o f t h i s change  o f 3D2N0,  autonomous  than  P e r c e p t i o n Changes '  expected  traits  noted.  he o r she t e n d s t o be p a s s i v e  The t e a c h e r delinquent,  representation  now but of  of him o r The  D  to devalue the and  sees  acceptant the student  slightly this  change  more is  61  U  D Figure  4.3: G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n o f T e a c h e r ' s R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A04.  presented  in Figure  Student score  changed  agreeable  from  conforming  to while  a  a s c o r e o f 03P2B, t y p e  PF. B o t h P and PF t y p e s and e q u a l i t a r i a n ,  t a s k and v a l u e - o r i e n t e d .  corresponds  Changes  4.4.  o f 2U8P4F, t y p e  friendly, more  A07  Perception  view  the  of  The  with  increase  the student  increase  on  the  increasing  p e r c e p t i o n of the s t u d e n t  A graphical  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h i s  are  seen  t h e PF t y p e on  the  to  be  seen  as  F-B  axis  a s more p e r s i s t e n t P-N  axis  reflects  i n the f r i e n d l y  change  P, t o a  and an  direction.  i s presented  in Figure  4.5.  Student score  changed  o f 2D6P2F, t y p e  change seen  A10  reflects  a  from  a s c o r e o f 3D4P1B,  P. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n difference  a s more autonomous and l e s s  of t h i s  i n submissiveness. of a f o l l o w e r than  type  DP,  to a  typological The P t y p e i s t h e DP  type.  62  Figure  4.5:  Graphical  D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A07.  Perception  Changes  63  In  this  to  the t y p o l o g i c a l  the  particular  researcher  possible  analysis  however,  change  of  of a l l changes.  i s presented  this  error. this  the change  i s only  to regard  measurement  interpretation  change  case,  in Figure  led  o f t h e m a g n i t u d e of 1, l e a d i n g  c h a n g e a s a c h a n c e change due. t o  For  case A  i n score which  this will  reason, be  graphical  the  ignored  change  f o r the  representation  in  final  of  this  4.6.  D  Figure  4.6:  Student score  of  ascending  A l l changed  1U8P0,  extraverted remaining  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A10.  and  type  P.  a s c o r e of 4U7P2F, t y p e The  UP  type  leadership-oriented  friendly  and s o c i a b l e .  in a social  interpretive  from  change  situation.  resulted  Perception  from  The  is  than  P type  Again, a minor  the  seen P  i s also  Changes  UP,  to  a  t o be more type seen  as f o r Student  while as  less  A10,  the  s c o r e c h a n g e and c o u l d  64  plausibly  have  therefore total  r e s u l t e d from measurement  also  be  ignored  i n the  changes. A g r a p h i c a l  presented  in Figure  error. This  final  case  will  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  representation  of  this  the  change  is  4.7.  U .8  /  1  I  1  )  Figure  4.7:  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s Regarding Student A l l .  Student  A12  the  magnitude  10P.  This  is with  seen the  places  4.8.  the  c h a n g e on score  i s viewed  in social to  be  student  as  an  increase and  change  more s t r o n g l y  representation  of  interpretive  the  interaction  score  the  of  individualistic  g r o u p . The  the  graphical  of  change  individual  d i d not  this  Percept ion  P-N  a x i s changed i n the  still  reflects into  a  the  change  label from  success  in f r i e n d l i n e s s .  while  Changes  The  retaining  6P  of  the  P  type  which  position.  i s presented  to  identity  perception above  but  in  A  Figure  65  P  D  Figure  4.8:  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A12.  S t u d e n t A14 score  of  4U3P2F,  ascendant  and  than  against,  from a  type  UP.  friendly.  value-oriented clearly  changed  The  the  UP  teacher's  p e r c e p t i o n of  on  the  axis  friendly  P-F  student  as  than  previous  to  this  change  Student score  of  or  the  A15  changed  often  P.  who  i s neither  of  value-oriented  a  seen  to  be'  are  i s more g o a l clearly  It should  this  student  also decreased  a  from a  a  to  values.  the  The  UPF,  and  less  UPF  and  The  less  be  for,  5  perception  or  and  noted  teacher  task  A graphical  nor that  points of  the  now  sees  value-oriented  representation  of  4.9.  score type  of  In  8U6P5F, t y p e  i s seen  leadership  projects.  strong  student.  in Figure  assuming  types  type,  friendly  i s presented  these  however,  experience.  2D4P1B, t y p e  ascendant, task  less  5U8P6F, t y p e  type,  reflecting  characteristics  the  B o t h of  of  UPF  group g o a l s  the  score  Changes '  role  t o be within  comparison,  UPF,  to  friendly the the  group P  a and on  type,  66  Figure  4.9: G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n o f T e a c h e r ' s R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A14.  while  remaining  ascendant  nor submissive.  change  is  comment  on t h i s  was  highly  The  student  position  case  i s strong  i n academic  security  to  the  as  a  outdoor  this  important.  achievement  leader.  well  The s t u d e n t  injuries  attempting  t a s k s a t which a t would  tactic  students,  When  in  the  failed,  who were d o i n g  well  student  situation.  removed  from  the  and q u a l i t i e s  classroom  were  no  had problems a d j u s t i n g t o t h e  illnesses  the student  further  a n d had o c c u p i e d a  the s k i l l s  and c o n d i t i o n s of the program. and  perceived  study,  i n the classroom  situation,  student  in this  Changes  and n e i t h e r  seems a p p r o p r i a t e . T h i s  numerous  this  as e q u a l i t a r i a n  the magnitude of t h i s  s u c c e s s f u l and dominant  as  style  seen  Since  particular  which had s e r v e d  life  is  one o f t h e s t r o n g e s t d e t e c t e d  of  classroom  longer  friendly  Perception  in  Student an  attempt  be d i f f i c u l t  elicited  A15  to  to  avoid  excel.  When  the support  i n t h e program,  feigned  of w i l l i n g  t o p r o v i d e a i d and  67  assistance.  In  individuals  that  case,  where  a  unaccustomed outdoors,  d o i n g , so,  Student  h e l p was student  who  problems  h a s o f t e n been  both  A15  wanted  excels  coping  in  the  the  and  succeeding  t o by o u t d o o r  the i n f l u e n c e s  graphical  representation  of  residential  of t h i s  change  has  in  the  educators.  The  on  p r e v i o u s a n e c d o t a l c l a i m s of outdoor  describing  those  classroom  d o c u m e n t a t i o n " of t h e t e a c h e r ' s p e r c e p t u a l change supports  to  and n e e d e d . T h i s t y p e o f  with  referred  admitted  outdoor  this  student  educators i n programs.  i s presented  A  in Figure  4.10.  U  Figure  4.10:  Student in  this  for  this  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A15.  A16  case student  i s another DP, was  case  where t h e  d i d n o t c h a n g e . The a 4 point  Perception  Changes  interpretive  label,  change  that  i n c r e a s e on t h e P-N  was axis.  detected The  DP  68  type  person  t h e DP in  type  the  be  noted  student that  Student  of  tends  p e r c e p t i o n of  of  to  i s seen  A15  cope this  the  and  teacher  i n the  and  n o n - a s s e r t i v e . In  identify  reflects  friendly  student  in that  change  friendly  to t r u s t  this  with  as  and  w i t h o t h e r s . The  change  a stronger teacher  opinion  loving  direction.  p r o v i d e d t h e most a i d and  individual's  the outdoor  attempts  situation.  i s presented  addition,  to a v o i d  It  should  support  for  failure  and  A graphical representation  in Figure  4.11.  D  Figure  4.11:  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s Regarding Student A16.  Student score  of  sociable to  A17  changed  4D3P1F, t y p e and  admire  submissive  and  friendly. identify  n a t u r e . The  from  a s c o r e of  DP.  Both  The  DP  with  type  type  1U6P1F., t y p e  P and  t y p e DP  reflects a  o t h e r s , as  change  P e r c e p t i o n Changes  reflected  well here  P,  are  to  a  viewed  as  greater  as  exhibiting  i s that  the  tendency a more teacher  69  perceived after  the student  the  graphical  as b e i n g  residential  representation  more  i n f l u e n c e d a n d l e d by  outdoor of t h i s  experience  change  than  i s presented  others  before. in  A  Figure  4.12.  Figure  4.12: G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n o f T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A17.  Student scores  on t h e U-D  reflects the  a  likeable  perceives dependent graphical 4.13.  A19  retained and P-N  on  perception  and  sociable  the  interpretive  axes both  new  the student  the  by t h e t e a c h e r directions.  t o be somewhat  self  representation  increased  than of t h i s  The  less  label 4  which  DP,  Changes  but the  points.  This  i s stronger i n  teacher  also  now  o f a f o l l o w e r a n d more  had been p r e v i o u s l y p e r c e i v e d . change  i s presented  in  A  Figure  70  P  CSOSPIF.)  D  Figure  4.13: G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n o f T e a c h e r ' s R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A19.  Student score  A21  o f 4D8P2B,  change  in  changed  perception  made f o r t h a t  A21.  graphical  Figure  of  agreeable  is  assertive in  A17,  and  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h i s  P, t o a  identical the  change  t o the  interpretive  are e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e  4U12P0, and  from  t o Student  i s presented in  type  UP.  friendly. that  neither  a s c o r e o f 2U8P4F, t y p e Types  The  t h e PF t y p e  submissive  social  i s more  success  now  nor a s s e r t i v e .  friendly  perceives this  and l e s s  oriented  arise  to seen  from  a as  the  t a s k and v a l u e - o r i e n t e d ,  but group task or v a l u e g o a l s tend  therefore  PF,  PF and UP a r e b o t h  differences  f a v o r o f m a i n t a i n i n g a happy  teacher to  Student  student  A22 c h a n g e d  interpretation and  of  i s almost  type  4.14.  Student score  a s c o r e o f 1U10P2B,  t y p e DP. T h i s change  comments A  from  P e r c e p t i o n Changes  The UP t y p e  i s more  t o be d e - e m p h a s i z e d  group  student  atmosphere. a s more  towards task  The  attentive  accomplishment  71  D  Figure  than  4.14:  prior  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s Regarding Student A21. to  representation Student score  of  the of  A23  this  The  teacher  follower axis  is  and  Student of  the  a s c o r e of UPF  an  this  A26  changed  in Figure  graphical 4.15.  3D3P3F, t y p e DPF, DPF  types appear  to  a  task  or  However, where t h e DPF  often seeking  l e a d e r s h i p from  of a s s u m i n g  student  .to  increased  type  others,  a leadership role.  have  changed  score  i n c r e a s e d p e r c e p t i o n of  friendly.. A graphical in Figure  and  loving.  initiative  perceives  reflects  presented  score  role,  experience. A  i s presented  Both  and  outdoor  t o more of a l e a d e r . The  also  likeable  takes  from  UPF.  friendly  assumes a s u b m i s s i v e type  change  changed  4U9P3F, t y p e  value-oriented,  t h e UPF  residential  P e r c e p t i o n Changes  on the  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of  from  a  the  P-N  student  as  this  change  4.16.  from  4U8P5F, t y p e UPF.  a  s c o r e of  Type UPF  1U8P2F, t y p e  differs  from  type  P, P  to  a  in that  72  Figure  4.16:  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of Teacher's R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t A23.  Perception  Changes  73  t h e UPF  type  working is  towards  displaying  such,  the  neither  goal-oriented  Figure  4.17:  of  traits  of  this  B02  and  ascendant  dominating  concerned  submissiveness student  previously  change  changed  resistance  individualism neither  than  6U5N6B, t y p e  of  more  and  assertive,  with nor  as  UNB.  from  T y p e s NB  to a u t h o r i t y autonomy.  nor  actively  openly  and  and  assertive graphical 4.17.  1D6N5B, t y p e NB, UNB  where  rebellious,  type  P e r c e p t i o n Changes  have  stubbornness,  However,  hostile.  A  in Figure  a s c o r e of  P  a s s e r t i v e n e s s . As  perceived.  i s presented  while  task-relevance  b e i n g more  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s Regarding Student A26.  Student score  less  teacher perceives t h i s  representation  is  t a s k o r v a l u e - o r i e n t e d g r o u p g o a l s . The  more e q u a i i t a r i a n , .being  and  and  assumes l e a d e r s h i p and  the  t h e UNB  A l s o , where t h e  the  to a  common  coupled NB type,  g o a l of  with  type  is  can  be  the  NB  74  type  seems t o be s i m p l y  type  seems  oriented  more  self-centered  rejection  of s o c i a l  towards g r a t i f i c a t i o n and  self-confident.  teacher's  p e r c e p t i o n may r e f l e c t  motivation  of t h i s  of t h e  outdoor  setting,  succeeded  tasks.  This  the student  student  was a l s o  change p e r c e i v e d i n t h i s  this  change  The  and  change  in  i s presented  classroom.  by S t u d e n t  d i d not the  i n many  BIO a n d t h e  may have been a m p l i f i e d  BIO. A g r a p h i c a l  the  of the  In  and even e x c e l l e d  supported  student  of Student  school  UNB  appears  s t u d e n t ' s o v e r t b e h a v i o r . Th« student  w i t h i n the s t r u c t u r e  change  of s e l f  the  a greater understanding  do w e l l  perceived  conformity,  by  the  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of  i n F i g u r e 4.18.  U  Figure  4.18: G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n o f T e a c h e r ' s R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t B02.  Student score  of  B05 c h a n g e d  9D3N2B,  type  from DB.  Perception  a s c o r e o f 5D2P3F, t y p e Type  DF  is  described  Changes  DF,  to  a  as b e i n g  75  submissive, or  impersonal,  inhibited  t a s k - o r i e n t e d leader, while  comparison,  the  sufficient,  and  indifferent  to  reject the  type  even task  researcher  however,  quite  conceivable the  graphical  From  t o e x p l a i n or  the  while  being  representation  of  this  In  self-  type  and  seems  appears  to  observations  This  student by  change  others.  This  researcher,  detected  value  isolated,  the  justify.  to  of  outdoor  s u b t l e b e h a v i o r s ,of t h e  researcher  follow a  goalr>  residential  unremarkable  that  resentful.  success.  the  to  unresponsive,  value-oriented  social  during  is difficult  appears  or  willing  fearing disapproval  u n f r i e n d l y and  o b j e c t i v e s of  change  by  DB  and  of  program,  this  student  was,  and  i t i s very  were  overlooked  the  teacher.  i s presented  A  in Figure  4.19. Student  B06,  while  changed  score  on  reflects  a more i n t e n s e  not  the  loving  changing  P-N  axis  teacher  friendly  and  graphical  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of  i n the from  interpretive  7P  to  perception  personality this  of  qualities  change  13P.  This  the  of  label,  the  i s presented  change  likeable, student. in  A  Figure  4.20. Student score  of  B08  changed  7D7P2F, t y p e  submissive,  from a  DP.  displaying  B o t h of traits  difference  between  task  value-oriented,  and  the  g r o u p on  the  task  perceives  an  the  types  individual  student  as  these of  the  DP  4D6P6F, t y p e JDPF, t o a  types  trust  i s that  seem  and  where t h e  type  b a s i s ; people  a t hand. T h i s change the  score-of  indicates  that  and  gentleness. DPF  seems more are  friendly  more the  more p e r s o n - o r i e n t e d  type  is  involved  The more with  important  than  teacher  now  and  less  goal-  76  Figure  4.19:  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t B05.  Perception  Changes  Figure  4.20:  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t B06.  Perception  Changes  77  (7D7P2F)  D  Figure  4.21: G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n o f T e a c h e r ' s R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t B08.  oriented  than  representation Student score  was of t h i s  BIO  increased  reflection within  the  regular  classroom  such,  more  classroom  did  group.  BIO  outdoors.  It i s highly  Student  B02  Student presented  student  as  an  A  this  and B02  were  4.22.  4.21.  increase  on t h e U-D  representation  aid  within  continued BIO,  that of  by  this  the As and the  i n the treating  "deputy", was  a  leadership  for  friends  obvious axis  is  situation.  student  Student but  and  outdoor  close  but the  figure within  connection  that  unofficial  graphical  in Figure  a strong  to  f o r the i n c r e a s e  B02.  was  looked  possible  This  assertiveness  the  this  graphical  in Figure  axis.  in  and  A  Changes  in interpretive label  i n power,  and e x c e l l e d  Student  case.  i s presented  on t h e U-D  The  students  the  n o t change  increase  environment  responsible  change  6 points  o f an  leadership.  previously  Perception  noted  was for  change i s  U1U2.N18P  Post^  Figure  4.22:  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n R e g a r d i n g S t u d e n t BIO.  Student increased change  B12  4  a l s o d i d not change  points  is identical  Student presented  B06.  A  retaining  B14  the  dominance  direction.  that  decreased  assertive  neither  sufficiently representation An  4 PF  this  the  representation  of  this  points  pre  in  now  of t h i s  the  change  be  change  post  U-D  in  change i s  axis  label.  the  This  power,  perceives  willing  nor  to  on  interpretive  teacher  more  strong  examination  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of of  be score  on  prior by  the  alone.  A  i s presented  in Figure  of t h e r e c o r d e d  t o be to the  the  U-D  interpreted  of the t o t a l i t y  change  the student  tempered  while  assertive,  t o be l e d t h a n  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n must  the  but  interpretation  perception  The  and  This  a x i s . The  label  4.23.  original  a  experience.  the  decreased  reflects  less  to  graphical  in Figure  Student  on t h e P-N  in interpretive  Changes  axis  fact was  graphical 4.24. individual  79  Figure  4.24:  G r a p h i c a l D e p i c t i o n of T e a c h e r ' s Regarding Student B14.  Perception  Changes  80  changes  failed  to  yield  systematically  or  logically  surface  t o be h a p h a z a r d  "typical"  expected  informal  discussions  gain  a further  selected  after still took  of  was  The c h a n g e s a p p e a r  Teacher  the  also  no  be  on t h e  patterns  or  outdoor  program  soon  so t h e e x p e r i e n c e the  for  S c o r i n g and  accomplished  A.when  to  some o f t h e  (1970).  were  i n t h e mind o f Teacher  changes  to v e r i f y  of Bales  of the changes  residential  A i n an a t t e m p t  perception  hoped  the procedures  discussions  centered  by t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r  The t e a c h e r  The  student  3)  to  was  discussions  place.  student  if  were h e l d w i t h  It  from  quite fresh  posed  2)  linked.  appeared  and u n c o n n e c t e d . S i n c e  interpretations  The  1)  which  c h a n g e s c o u l d be d i s c e r n e d by t h e r e s e a r c h e r ,  students.  the  changes  understanding  interpretations initial  any  was a s k e d  to the best teacher  around  three  types  of q u e s t i o n s  regarding several students: to  describe  of t h e i r  ability..  was t h e n  had changed a f t e r  asked  the  whether  personality  their  the r e s i d e n t i a l  of  the  p e r c e p t i o n s of the  outdoor  program,  and,  s o , how had i t c h a n g e d . If  whether  the  there  behaviours their  teacher  noticed  were  that  any  they  any c h a n g e ,  particular  could  the teacher  " incidents  identify  t h a t might  was  o r '"  asked  student  have s t i m u l a t e d  p e r c e p t u a l change o f t h e s t u d e n t . The  "results  interpretations general,  of  these  from  congruent  personalities result  of  the  with  procedures  indicated  of B a l e s  that  the  (1970) were, i n  the v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n s of the s t u d e n t s '  made by t h e  teacher  discussions  teacher.  omissions  Any  r a t h e r than  discrepancies conflicts  with  were  a  Bales'  81  (1970)  i n f e r e n c e s . Since  further  description,  witness"  might  the r e s e a r c h e r  for fear that  be l e v e l e d ,  this  d i d nothing  the c r i t i c i s m error  of  to stimulate  of  " l e a d i n g the  omission  would  be  expected. The detected or  a  teacher  a l s o aware o f , and d e s c r i b e d many o f t h e  p e r c e p t i o n c h a n g e s and c o u l d  series  alter  was  of  observations  perceptions  and  the o b s e r v a t i o n s  changes  of  interpretations The the  changes  has  changes  in  delineated  that may  and  A16  led  the  teachers' priori  program.  to  perceptions to  the  nature  be d e t e c t e d  and  of t h e s e  described.  students.  As  an  presented  teacher.  justify  to conclude of  to  used t o d e s c r i b e the  and  that  students  participation  However, c h a n g e s do o c c u r ,  the exact  the t e a c h e r  i n the changes coupled  explain  researcher  due  the  incidents  i n the p r e v i o u s l y  were a l s o v e r b a l i z e d by  of the t e a c h e r  a  of  of t h e r e s e a r c h e r  l a c k of a p e r c e i v e d p a t t e r n  ability  outdoor  A15  describe  w h i c h had c a u s e d  evaluations  example,  student  often  in  the  noted  there  a r e no  that a  with  can  be  residential  and d e s p i t e the  fact  c h a n g e s c a n n o t be p r e d i c t e d ,  they  82  #_ 3  Spec i f i c P r o b l e m The space  positional  were u s e d  coordinates  to c a l c u l a t e  Procedures  used  of  I I I . A simple  Chapter  written  and  f o r each  the  employed  to  in  the  d i s t a n c e s between  were as d e s c r i b e d program  student  i n the  group  individuals.  instrumentation  section  f o r a TRS-80 m i n i - c o m p u t e r  do  the  calculated  d i s t a n c e s and  the  probable  coalitions,  networks,  calculations.  previously  Using  mentioned  leaders  and  was these  techniques,  isolates  were  identified. Figure within  4.25  Class  illustrates  A  prior  to  Distances  between members  bracketed  numbers  As  can  be  the  one  major  as  perceiving  the  l e a d e r . Student  far  from  any  Figure outdoor  the the  network  4.26  depicts  infer  the  outdoor are  process  is identified to  social  structure experience.  given  by  the  following Figures.  network w i t h  student  of  the  program  indicates  within  the  d e p i c t s the  Student as an  a  A15  teacher  p o s i t i o n e d as  isolate,  being  too  coalition.  same c l a s s  after  the  occasions are isolate  position  the  social  teachers that  structure  following  various  a change of  to the A15  about  to take  of  residential  the  members  inferred  have  the  half  l e a d e r s h i p and  from  residential moved  n e t w o r k . However, t h e m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s  Student  up  residential  inferential  other  examination  responses  former  and  inferred  experience.  An  two  A05  the of  in this  seen,  the  the  the  outdoor position  between  linking  the  of  the  leadership position  to a  network.  has way  moved  from  down t h e  a  network. Student  leadership position  A25  formerly occupied  has by  moved Student  83  (4:i)  (110)  (4.1)  I A20  (4.7)  (3:0) A10  A23  (2L)  o!o)  I  I  A03  A06 (2.2)  (2.2)  A18  A19 Figure  A15.  4.25:  For  P e r c e i v e d S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e of C l a s s A P r i o r R e s i d e n t i a l Outdoor Program.  a possible understanding  position  the  Chapter  where  is  reader the  of  the  change  previous  to  in Student  is referred  to the  section  personality  p e r c e p t i o n c h a n g e of  the  Al5's  of  Student  this A15  discussed. Student  moved  firmly  close a  A04  A05,  while  into  the  enough t o a t  initially  identified  network. T h i s  least  one  other  student  as an i s now  member of  the  isolate,  has  s e e n as  being  group to  infer  coalition. In  this  class,  following  the  experience,  the  teacher  84  A14  Figure  4.26:  Perceived Social Residential  perceived isolated some  a and  each  social  network w i t h  individual  linked  no  to every  member o f other  the  the  class  individual  in  structure  of  way. Figure  Class  4.27  B before In  this  the  class  and  BIO  the  single  S t r u c t u r e of C l a s s A F o l l o w i n g Outdoor Program.  going  on  case  the  t o be  form  illustrates  one  l e a d e r . The  divided  the  the  residential  social  outdoor  i n f e r e n c e i s t h a t the into  network  with  rest  the  of  inferred  two  separate  Student class  BIO  program. teacher  networks. being  forms the  perceives  Students  inferred  second  to  network  B02 be with  85 BIO  o!o)  (8.5)  I  B13  B02  (5.9)  I  B03 (3.3) B08  Bll  (1.4)  / N S  B12  (1.4)  BOl Figure  B04  B05  4.27: P e r c e i v e d S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e o f C l a s s B P r i o r R e s i d e n t i a l Outdoor Program.  Student  social  perceptions program  s t r u c t u r e of t h i s  of  the  this  with  remains  instance  Student directly  forms an i n d i r e c t the  structure. within  teacher  is illustrated  In  lost  to the  B09 a s t h e l e a d e r .  The  one,  (3(7)  class  as  being only  link  the e n t i r e  leader  Again,  various  role  have  inferred  connected  former  t,ne  outdoor  4.28.  t h e two n e t w o r k s  with  from  f o l l o w i n g the r e s i d e n t i a l  in Figure  BIO now  inferred  students  to  become  the l e a d e r . Student  to Student  but  merged  BIO, b u t i n t h i s  group.  Student  remains h i g h have  B02  shown  way  B09  has  i n the s o c i a l  minor  movement  the network.  Here structure  again, of  the  outdoor  program,  isolates  and e a c h  the class to  a  student  teacher's changed, perception linked  perception  of  following  the  of a single  to every  other  the  social  residential  network w i t h student  no  in  some  changed  from  way. In their  the a n a l y s i s of t h i s  initial  perception  problem  of the c l a s s  both  teachers  social  o r g a n i z a t i o n , which  86  BOl (1.4)  (li4)  (1.4)  (3.0) (3.0) B08 (10.0)  -  I Figure  B05 4.28: P e r c e i v e d S o c i a l Residential  included  isolates  perception The  teachers  cohesive.  of now  and  S t r u c t u r e of C l a s s Outdoor Program.  more  than  one  social  a s i n g l e i n t e g r a t e d network see t h e i r  own  c l a s s e s as  B Following  network,  f o r t h e whole being  the  to  a  class.  more " s o c i a l l y  87  CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS AND  Conclusions  long  involved  postulated  that  better  has  been  study  RECOMMENDATIONS  of t h e Study  Educators  the  V  during used  with  residential  student-teacher  the time p e r i o d as  a  h a s shown t h a t  basis  study  of the outdoor  t o support  student-teacher  residential teacher conducive found  the  their  that  teachers  to  the  entity following  program has a l s o In  view  been  totality,  do  and t h a t outdoor,  the  can  This  and  social  do  involved i n  perception accepted  of  their  t o be more  s i t u a t i o n . I t has  program  change  their  p e r s o n a l i t i e s . The t e n d e n c y  class  organization  of  a s a more  participation in a residential  the changes  of teachers  residential  Theory  outdoor  shown.  relationships take p l a c e ,  program.  students  and l e a r n i n g in  of i n d i v i d u a l student  teacher  cohesive  involved  for  program.  i s generally  to a p o s i t i v e teaching  perception  outdoor  o u t d o o r p r o g r a m s change d i r e c t i o n which  change  perceptions  that  a  have  those c o n j e c t u r e s .  demonstrated  in  has  programs  relationships  change as a r e s u l t of a r e s i d e n t i a l This  outdoor  in interpersonal  and s t u d e n t s  theory  predicts  programs,  have  that  perceptions  and  experience" suggests  should been  take'  place  demonstrated  in and  documented. From help  the d i s c u s s i o n s  but  development The  of Chapter  substantially and s o c i a l  teacher,  now  contribute  well-being  knowing  1,  these both  cannot  the  academic  of the p a r t i c i p a t i n g  students.  additional  to  changes  relevant  facts  about  88  students,  should  educational I,  process.  the o v e r a l l  improved.  Based  situation  residential  for realizing  In  chapter,  the study  study  i t  individual teacher's  the  should  have  are  more  a  traditional  development  classroom  goals  of e d u c a t i o n .  i n the f i r s t  three  paragraphs of  h a s been q u i t e c o n c l u s i v e . The f i n d i n g s ,  made  many more  interesting  questions  no  examined  the  change  in  determine  information available  student  teacher's  outdoor  than  relationships  The  i s another  change  assumed  due  before  i n the teachers'  the the  actual  and  a f t e r the greatly in  change.'  students  to  but only  relationships.  e q u a l l y worthy  to  of  students.  and  made no a t t e m p t  between  of these  area  that  individual  o f t h e documented  the a c t u a l i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s teacher  perceptions  realistic  both  actual  students, but  program would a s s i s t  manner, t h e s t u d y  perceptions  was  the  o f t h e c o n g r u e n c e between  e v a l u a t i o n of the e f f e c t  interpersonal  It  regarding  personalities,  of a r e s i d e n t i a l  In a s i m i l a r  teacher  w o u l d become more  However, an i n v e s t i g a t i o n  conduct  to  personalities.  perceptions  perceived  attempt  or p e r s o n a l i t y changes of i n d i v i d u a l  student  additional  the  programs  i n Chapter  i n v e s t i g a t e d by t h e s t u d y .  rather  of  class  i nthe  a n d Recommendations o f t h e S t u d y  personalities  the  than  the f i n d i n g s presented  This  an  of the  outdoor  the s o c i a l  however, p o s e a n d i n d i c a t e were  engage them  on t h e a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d  e d u c a t i o n a l program  Limitations  this  t o more e f f e c t i v e l y  educational  Perhaps  effective program  be a b l e  identify analyzes  The c o n g r u e n c e  and those  p e r c e i v e d by  of i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  perceptions  of s o c i a l  networks  89  documented other  in  this  p r o g r a m s . The  study  study fact  is  that  moved t o a p e r c e p t i o n  their  c l a s s e s only  further  l e a d e r s h i p and another  area  illuminate This  The  of  which  social  effects  has  only of  were s t u d i e d , e q u a l l y perceptions  is  alter  turn  i n f l u e n c e the  of  the  student.  the  social  impact  of  phenomenon must  the An  extension  interest and  would  teacher  teacher's their  perceptions  shifts students  in  be  academic  students'  that  the  i f we  outdoor the  be  that  of  of  are  school  their the  general  area  worthy  residential  outdoor  and  "relevant  emotional  This  in  adjustment  understand  p r o g r a m s , many more  the  aspects  addressed. t h a t might  t o examine  the  shifts.  "What on  is  the  students And  perceptions  of  now  be  of  relationship  teacher?"  teacher  of  in  t o more f u l l y  this- study  the  residential  regarding  parents  and  fully  student-teacher  educational process.  success  is  programs.  perceptions  and  in  perceived  t o more  outcomes  peers  outdoor  of p e r c e p t i o n of  important  within  network(s)  in order  students'  students'  perception shift  social  outcomes  possibility  residential  of  the  perceptions  Obviously  of  the  this  testable  in f u t u r e s t u d i e s . Another  the  regarding  network  duration of,  residential  self,  the  others" may  of  examined  investigation  p r o g r a m s may  and  social  teachers  of  of,  the only  involved in  cohesive  investigated  programs. While  to g e n e r a l i z e to  t r e n d w h i c h c o u l d be  of  outdoor  a l s o be  single  changes w i t h i n  r e l a t i o n s h i p component  should  teachers  requires investigation  study  students'  sufficient  two  a  effect  isolate  the  the  indicates a  studies.  not  views  who  "What the in  a  considerable  between  student  nature  of  radically is  the  teacher different  the  shifted  nature for  of  those  manner?"  90  would  be q u e s t i o n s p o s e d This  the  study  criteria  conducive Sufficient  investigated  as  to  i n such  study.  a p r o g r a m w h i c h was j u d g e d  established  positive  detail  a  by  Vogan  (1970)  student-teacher  of the  actual  t o meet  f o r .programs  relationhip  treatment  and  changes.  the  treatment  /  groups  has  been  generalizability situation.  that  the  to  enable  findings  i t may  be t h a t  some c r i t e r i a  of a d d i t i o n a l  the c r i t e r i a  to  residential  a realization  of  criteria.  This  residential  outdoor  while  in  this  ensuring  the  o u t c o m e s d o c u m e n t e d by t h i s The  problem  generalizability changes  of  of t h i s  i n student  ensure  found  strong  evidence  to  support  target  population.  some  manipulation  the  various  of  of the  the i n c l u s i o n  information of  lead  designers  about  w o u l d be  the  greatly  However, w i t h  to occur, the  educators  beneficial  the  the  study  of  course  the  hypothesized  relationship  and i n t h i s  the  restricts  experiential  for generalization During  important.  inclusion  continuation  study.  being  evidence  the  the  the  sampling  actually  indirect  of  permit  p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e i r  o f many o u t d o o r  student-  study.  teacher  claims  vary i n  program, c o u l d  importance  way,  so  actual  b e i n g more s e l e c t i v e  In  criteria  p r o g r a m s w h i c h meet  outdoor  would  programs t o  criteria.  invaluable  relative  knowledge  criteria  other  the  particular  to positive  but not o t h e r s , o r p o s s i b l e  to  t o judge t h e  other  o t h e r s a r e not  t h e components of t h e r e s i d e n t i a l  of  any  the proposed  of  critical  the reader  are c r u c i a l  r e l a t i o n s h i p change w h i l e  Documentation of  of  However,  importance; teacher  provided  with  has  their  provided  and s p e c u l a t i v e  way h a s e s t a b l i s h e d  the of  findings the  to  study,  the some  91  additional  data  Additional taken data,  were c o l l e c t e d  data  part  was  not  a  part  A p p e n d i x G and p r o v i d e s generalization Most  of t h e i r  perceptions  relationships data  within  outdoor of  program.  the  main  This  study,  Class  B.  they  had  additional  i s analyzed  supporting  in  the  possible  in  students  findings. the  teachers  positive and the n a t u r e  of student the  for future research  of  change of  personalities  class,  f r a m e d by t h e c r i t e r i a  direction  4 p a r t of  from C l a s s C a f t e r  some e v i d e n c e  importantly,  perceptions teacher's  of the  the Grade  also collected  in a residential  while  on  coupled  Vogan  in this  change  in  and i n t e r p e r s o n a l  with  ~ (1970), area.  the  the  descriptive  should  provide  92  REFERENCES B a l e s , R.F. P e r s o n a l i t y and i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r . H o l t R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1970.  New  York:  Bateson, D . J . , & W o r t h i n g , D.C. A s t u d y o f o u t d o o r e d u c a t i o n in B r i t i s h Columbia s c h o o l s . Report a v a i l a b l e through the University of British Columbia library: Curriculum Laboratory, 1976. Berger, H.J. A plan for developing competenc i e s for leadership in school camping and o u t d o o r e d u c a t i o n f o r elementary education students. Unpublished Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , New York U n i v e r s i t y , 1958. Bock, D.R. Multivariate statistical methods r e s e a r c h . New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1975.  in behavioral  B r o p h y , J . E . , & Good, T.L. Teacher-student r e l a t i o n s h i p s j_ Causes and consequences. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1974. Brown, A.W. The a c a d e m i c a s p e c t Campus, 1961, 14(1). C a m p b e l l , D.T., exper i m e n t a l 1963. . C a t t e l l , R.B., personality Personality 1951.  of o u t d o o r  e d u c a t i o n . The  New  & Stanley, J.C. Experimental and quasid e s i g n s f o r r e s e a r c h . C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , S a u n d e r s , D.R., & Stice, G.F. The sixteen factor q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The Institute for and Ability Test ing, Champaign, Illinois,  Conrad, L.H. The t e a c h e r o u t - o f - d o o r s . The B u l l e t i n of t h e Nat i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s . 1947, 31, 36-41. Combs, A.W. and Row,  & Snygg, D. 1959.  Individual  behavior.  New  Curtis, H.S. The school camp. Journal of E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , 1936, 24.' 113-116.  York:  the  Harper  Nat i o n a l  Davidson, N. C h a n g e s . i n s e l f - c o n c e p t s and s o c i o m e t r i c s t a t u s o f f i f t h and s i x t h g r a d e children as a result of two different school camp curricula. Unpublished Ed. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y , 1965. Dewey, J . E x p e r i e n c e 1938.  and  Doty, R.S. The character A s s o c i a t i o n Press, 1960.  education.  dimension  New  York:  Macmillan,  of c a m p i n g . New  York:  93  E l l i o t , E.B., & S m i t h , J.W. The M i c h i g a n p r o g r a m The Bullet in of the National Assoc i a t i o n P r i n c i p a l s , 1974, 31, 60-74. Fiedler, J.D. The concept r e l a t i o n s h i p s . J o u r n a l of 239-243.  in action. of Secondary  of the ideal therapeutic C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1950, 41,  Freeburg, W.H. O u t d o o r e d u c a t i o n - A method o f i n s t r u c t i o n . I l l i n o i s J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n , 1961, 52, 11-15. Gibson, H.F. The M a g a z i n e , 1946,  history of 8, 13-15.  organized  camping.  Camping  Glass, G.V., Peckham, P.D. & S a n d e r s , J.R. C o n s e q u e n c e s of f a i l u r e t o meet a s s u m p t i o n s underlying the analysis of variance and c o v a r i a n c e . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1972, 42, 237-288. G l a s s , G.V. & S t a n l e y J . C . S t a t i s t i c a l methods in and psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : Hall, 1970. H a r g r e a v e s , . D.H. Interpersonal relations L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e and Regan P a u l , 1972. Hathaway, S.R., & M c K i n l e y , J.C. p e r s o n a l i ty inventory manual P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corp., 1951.  and  The M i n n e s o t a (revised).  educat ion Prenticeeducation.  multiphasic New York:  Heine, R.W. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between changes and responsible factors as seen by clients following treatment by psychotherapi sts of the psychoanali t i c , Adler ian and non-direct ive schools. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o , 1950. Herbert, CL. Outdoors with E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l , 1966,  Title III. 46, 71-75.  The  National  Herrell, J. G a l a t e a i n the c l a s s r o o m ' : Student expectations a f f e c t t e a c h e r b e h a v i o r . Paper presented at the annual m e e t i n g of t h e A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n , - 1971. Hoyt, R. A s t u d y of t h e e f f e c t of t e a c h e r k n o w l e d g e o f p u p i l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on p u p i l a c h i e v e m e n t and a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s c l a s s w o r k . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1955, 46, 302-310. Jensen, B.E. Development of a camper attitude s c a l e to evaluate attitudinal change toward a spec i f i c camp object ive• Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa, 1965.  94  K e l l y , E.C. R e a s o n s f o r o u t d o o r education. Perspectives on Outdoor Educat ion j_ R e a d i n g s , (G.W.Donalson & O . G o e r i n g e d . ) . Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown, 1972. K i r k , R.E. E x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n : P r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a ! B r o o k s / C o l e , 1968. K l e i n d i e n s t , V.K. A s t u d y of t h e e x p e r i e n c e s of camping for the purpose of p o i n t i n g out ways i n w h i c h a s c h o o l camp p r o g r a m may s u p p l e m e n t t h e e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l a t t h e sixth grade level. Unpublished Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , New York University, 1957. K l e i n , S. S t u d e n t i n f l u e n c e on teacher behavior. E d u c a t i o n a l R e a s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 1971, 8, 403-421. Knoblock, P., & Golstein, : A l l y n and Bacon, 1971.  A.P.  The.lonely  American  teacher.  Boston  K r i e g e r , W. The e f f e c t s of an o r g a n i z e d c a m p i n g e x p e r i e n c e on s e l f - c o n c e p t change i n r e l a t i o n t o t h r e e variables: Age, sex and observable behavior change. Unpublished Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of New M e x i c o , 1970. L e v y , K . J . A monte c a r l o s t u d y of a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e u n d e r v i o l a t i o n s of the assumptions of normality and equal regression slopes. Educat i o n a l and . P s y c h o l o g i c a l M e a s u r e m e n t , 1980, 40, 835-840. L e w i s , W.A., Lovell, J.T., & Jessee, B.E. Interpersonal relationship and pupil p r o g r e s s . P e r s o n n e l and G u i d a n c e J o u r n a l , 1965, X L I V , 396-401. L e w i s , W.A, & Wigel, assumed s i m i l a r i t y . X L I I I , 155-158.  W. Interpersonal understanding P e r s o n n e l and G u i d a n c e J o u r n a l ,  and 1964,  Major, J.M., & Cissel, C.A. E n v i ronmental educat ion o b j e c t i v e s and f i e l d a c t i v i t i e s ( 4 t h e d . ) . R e p o r t prepared under the auspices of t h e West K e n t u c k y ESEA T i t l e I I I R e g i o n I , 1971. Mand, C.L. O u t d o o r (no date!"!  educat i o n . Columbus:  Charles  Miller, P.S. The C l e a r i n g House,  summer camp reenforces 1936, 10, 471.  E.  Merrill,  education.  The  N u t h a l l , G., & C h u r c h , J . E x p e r i m e n t a l , s t u d i e s of teaching behavior. Towards A Sc i e n c e Of T e a c h i n g , ( G a b r i e l Chanan, ed.). Windsor: National Foundation for Educational Research, 1973.  95  O'Hare, M.R.D. T e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f ' the g r o u p p r o c e s s i n t h e elementary school. Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Fordham U n i v e r s i t y , 1964. O n t a r i o T e a c h e r s ' F e d e r a t i o n . O u t d o o r e d u c a t i o n manual j_ P a r t . I_. O n t a r i o : O n t a r i o T e a c h e r s ' F e d e r a t i o n , 1970. Partridge, E.D. Some psychological Camping M a g a z i n e , 1943, 15_, 6-8. Passmore, J . Outdoor educat ion i n Canadian Education A s s o c i a t i o n ,  backgrounds  Canada 1973.  ^  of  1972.  camping. Toronto:  P e t e r s o n , R.D. A c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t s t u d y of e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l teacher-pupi1 r e l a t ions i n Washington S t a t e . U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of W a s h i n g t o n , 1963. Rogers, C R . The necessary and sufficient therapeutic personality change. Journal P s y c h o l o g y , 1957, 21, 95-103. S a c k , M.J. S c h o o l camping A potent E d u c a t i o n , 1953, 7 J 3 , 501-503.  factor  conditions of of C o u n s e l l i n g in  guidance.  Schramm, W. C l a s s r o o m o u t - o f - d o o r s j_ E d u c a t i o n t h r o u g h c a m p i n g . K a l a m a z o o : S e q u o i a P r e s s , 1969.  school  Sharman, J.R., P a t t y , W.W., Schorling, R., & Mason, B.S. E d i t o r i a l comment : Camps meet new n e e d ; s o c i a l i z a t i o n of the camps; a new w o r l d . The P h i D e l t a Kappan, 1938, 21, 113-119. S h a r p , L.B. & P a r t r i d g e , E.D. Some h i s t o r i c a l b a c k g r o u n d s of c a m p i n g . B u l l e t i n o f t h e Nat i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s , 1947, 3_1, 15-20. Smith, J.W. available Physical 1957.  O u t d o o r e d u c a t i o n f o r Amer i c a n y o u t h . Monograph from the American Association for Health, Education, and R e c r e a t i o n , Washington, D.C,  S m i t h , J.W. A decade of progress in J o u r n a l of O u t d o o r E d u c a t i o n , 1966, 1,  outdoor 3-5.  education.  Smith, J.W. Where have we been; where a r e we; what w i l l we become. The T a f t Campus O u t d o o r E d u c a t i o n Award Lecture, 1970. Smith, J.W., C a r l s o n , R.E., D o n a l d s o n , G.W., & Masters, H.B. O u t d o o r e d u c a t i o n (2nd e d . ) . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : Prentice Hall, 1972. Solley, CM. & Murphy, G. D e v e l o p m e n t . New Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s , 1960.  of  the p e r c e p t u a l w o r l d  96  T h e l a n , H.A. Dynamics o f g r o u p s a t work. C h i c a g o : of C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1954.  University  Tufuor, J.K. E s s e n t i a l components of a teacher t r a i n i n g c o u r s e i n o u t d o o r e d u c a t i o n j_ A s u r v e y . Unpublished M.A. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1978. Weinstein, G., & F a n t i n i , M.D. Toward h u m a n i s t i c A c u r r i c u l u m of a f f e c t . New York: Praeger 1971.  education Publishers,  Woodward, R.W. A proposed strategy f o r evaluating the ef f e c t i v e n e s s of an environmental educat ion p r o g r a m i_n terms of a c h i e v i n g a selected g o a l . U n p u b l i s h e d major e s s a y f o r M. E d . , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1973. V i v i a n , V . E . , & R i l l o , T . J . F o c u s on e n v i r o n m e n t a l e d u c a t i o n . G l a s s b o r o , New J e r s e y : The C u r r i c u l u m D e v e l o p m e n t Council f o r S o u t h e r n New J e r s e y , 1970. Vogan, C.L. af f e c t i n g education. University,  Cr i t e r i a f o r evaluat ing condi t ion changes teacher-student relat ionships in outdoor U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e 1970.  Winer, B . J . S t a t i s t i c a l principles (2nd e d . ) . New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l ,  i n experimental 1971.  design  97  APPENDIX A INTERPERSONAL RATINGS,  FORMS A, B AND  C  The f o l l o w i n g a r e the combined items of the o r i g i n a l ' t h r e e f o r m s o f t h e IPA d e v e l o p e d by B a l e s . E a c h s e t o f t h r e e questions i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e o r d e r : Form A, Form B, Form C; and i s followed by t h e d i r e c t i o n a l s c o r i n g key f o r t h o s e q u e s t i o n s . I t e m s w i t h a s t e r i s k s w i l l be d e l e t e d i n t h i s s t u d y .  *  1.  Does he ( o r s h e ) seem t o r e c e i v e others?  1.  Is h i s (or her) rate  1.  Does he ( o r s h e ) t e n d t o a d d r e s s , r a t h e r than i n d i v i d u a l s ?  of part i c i p a t ion  YES = U  *  the  generally group  high?  as  Does he t e n d  26.  Does he seem t o c o n f i n e h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n m o s t l y g i v i n g i n f o r mat ion, when a s k e d ? rate  whole  himself?  of p a r t i c i p a t ion NO  Does he seem p e r s o n a l l y  involved  2.  Does he seem t o assume t h a t popular?  2.  Does he ' seem to rate himself s o c i a l l y popular t r a i t s ?  he  NO  generally  very  to only low?  = U  2.  YES = UP  a  = D  26.  26. I s h i s t o t a l  to devalue  NO  YES = D  *  a l o t of i n t e r a c t i o n from  i n the group? will  = DN  be  highly  successful on  and  a l l good o r  93  *  22.  Does he seem r e s e n t f u l ?  22.  Does he seem o n l y his opinion?  22. Does he t e n d  t o p a r t i c i p a t e when o t h e r s  t o be somewhat YES = DN  *  Does he seem v a l u a b l e  3.  Does he seem t o s e e h i m s e l f  3.  Does he seem l i k e l y  for a logical  YES = UPF  *  Does he seem t o a c c e p t  23.  Does he others?  seem  23. Does he t e n d  failure  preoccupied  YES = DNB  *  task?  a s a good and k i n d  NO  to believe  h i g h l y on =  and w i t h d r a w a l feelings  others NO  responsibility  "leadership"?  DNB  with  that  parent?  dislike  for himself?  of d i s l i k e f o r him?  = UPF.,  4.  Does he assume  4.  I s h i s r a t e of g i v i n g suggest i o n s  4.  Does he seem t o f e e l he r e p r e s e n t s - some i m p e r s o n a l p l a n f o r the group? YES = UF  NO  24.  Does he seem t o w i t h h o l d  24.  Does he show many s i g n s  24.  Is laughter group?  h i s main  YES = DB  for  = UP  t o be r a t e d  23.  him  depressed? NO  3.  ask  f o r group  on g r o u p t a s k s  of t e n s i o n  NO  high? higher  = DB  cooperation  or o n l y  leadership?  passively?  and p a s s i v e  resistance?  mode o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n  = UF  i n the  99  *  5.  Does he speak  l i k e an a u t o c r a t i c a u t h o r i t y ?  5.  I s h i s r a t e of r e c e i v i n g  5.  Does he make d i sc i p l i n e ?  disagreement  inhibitory  demands  YES = UNF  generally  and  want  high? to  enforce  NO = DPB /  *  25. Does  he  seem  underprivileged  to  identify  with  some  group  of  persons?  25.  Does he seem u n l i k e l y  t o arouse  25.  Does he seem t o be a p p e a l i n g YES = DPB  dislikes?  f o r understanding? NO = UNF  /  *  6.  Does he seem  dominating?  6.  Does he seem t o make o t h e r s  feel  6.  Does he t e n d  low on s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e ?  to rate others YES = UN  18.  18.  feel  he a d m i r e s  them?  understanding?  Does he seem t o have a g e n e r a l others? YES = DP  *  them?  NO = DP  Does he seem t o make o t h e r s  * 18. Does he seem c a l m  he d i s l i k e s  trust  Does he seem to.demand p l e a s u r e  7.  Does he r e c e i v e a l o t o f l a u g h t e r ?  7.  Does he guess dominat ion?  YES = UNB  the  goodness  of  NO = UN  7.  that  in  others  and g r a t i f i c a t i o n ?  will  NO = DPF  rate  him  high  on  100  *  19.  Does he seem t o b e l i e v e that equality concern f o r others i s important?  19.  Does he seem t o be s u b m i s s i v e l y good?  19. Does he replaced  tend to by t e n d e r  believe that aggression love?  YLS = DPF  * 8.  Does he seem t o t h i n k o f h i m s e l f  8.  Does he seem v e r y  8.  Does he make many j o k e s  20. Does he seem v e r y  as e n t e r t a i n i n g ?  o r show many f a n t a s i e s ? NO = DF  introverted  20.  Does he seem o f t e n t o a s k f o r leadership?  20.  Does he seem t o be v e r y  , s e r i o u s and shy? suggest ions  acceptant  or  Does he seem warm and p e r s o n a l ?  9.  Does he seem a b l e  9.  Does he seem t o be a b l e  task-  of a u t h o r i t y ?  t o g i v e a l o t of a f f e c t i o n ? t o make o t h e r s  feel  less  i t i s necessary  21.  Does he seem t o f e e l  fearful  21.  Does he inertia?  to  anxious, plow  YES = DNF  anxious?  NO = DNF  21. Does he seem t o b e l i e v e t h a t the s e l f f o r h i g h e r v a l u e s ?  seem  for  NO = UB  9.  YES = UPB  *  a n d sex c a n be  extroverted?  YES = DF  *  humanitarian  NO = UNB  YES = UB  *  and  persistently  NO = UPB  to s a c r i f i c e  of not c o n f o r m i n g ? ahead  with  great  101  * 10. Does he a r o u s e  your  admiration?  10.  Does he seem  friendly  10.  I s h i s r a t e of a s k i n g  in h i s behavior? others  YES = P  14.  *  Does very  opinions  high?  NO = N  he seem t o f e e l important?  that h i s i n d i v i d u a l  independence i s  14. Does he seem u n f r i e n d l y i n h i s b e h a v i o r ? 14.  I s h i s r a t e of d i s a g r e e m e n t  YES = N  *  for their  I s h i s r a t e of g i v i n g  11.  Does he others?  seem  high?  NO = P  11. Does he seem e s p e c i a l l y s e r i o u s o p i n i o n s about 11.  generally  t o be a d d r e s s e d w h i c h t h e y want  agreement  generally  YES = PF  when others have confirmation?  generally  prone  to  high?  feel  admiration for  NO = NB  15.  Does he seem to feel that others are g e n e r a l l y conforming to conventional s o c i a l expectations?  15.  Does he seem p e s s i m i s t i c a b o u t  15.  Does he have a t e n d e n c y  YES = NB  to f e e l  group  ideals?  others  NO = PF  are dominating?  too  102  * 12. Does he seem t o s t a n d b e l i e f s of the group? 12.  Does he t e n d m o s t l y participates? -  12.  I s he g e n e r a l l y v e r y YLS  f o r t h e most c o n s e r v a t i v e i d e a s a n d  t o g i v e o p i n i o n or  strongly  = F  analysis  when  he  work-oriented?  NO  =  B  /  * 16. Does he seem t o r e j e c t  religious  16.  Does he seem p r e o c c u p i e d  16.  Does he t e n d  with  t o see o t h e r s YES  beliefs  generally?  wishful fantasies?  as t o o a c c e p t a n t  = B  NO  of a u t h o r i t y ?  = F  /  13.  Does he a l w a y s  13.  Does he seem restraint?  * 13. Does he t e n d  seem t o t r y t o s p e a k to  emphasize moderation,  t o arouse YES  guilt  = NF  17.  Do y o u f e e l  17.  Does he seem t o make o t h e r s warm?  * 17. Do others him?  liking  tend  YES  objectively? value-determined  i n others? NO  = PB  f o r him or h e r ?  t o address  = PB  feel  they  their  NO  = NF  jokes  are  entertaining,  and f a n t a s i e s t o  103  APPENDIX B HISTORICAL  ITEMS  OF THE TPRI  The f o l l o w i n g i s a c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e i t e m s u s e d by Heine, Lewis e t a l , , and K n o b l o c k a n d G o l d s t e i n . Items w i t h a s t e r i s k s a r e i n d i c a t i v e of a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p while the remaining i t e m s a r e i n d i c a t i v e of a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p .  HEINE'S  ITEMS  LEWIS ET AL'S  ITEMS  KNOBLOCK AND GOLDSTEIN'S ITEMS  *1) The therapist n e v e r l e t me feel that he rather t h a n I was t o t a k e responsibility for solving my problems.  1) The teacher always lets me f e e l t h a t I was t o take responsibility for what I l e a r n e d .  1) The always figure school  teacher lets me out my work.  2) I t seemed to me that the t h e r a p i s t didn't take his work too ser i o u s l y .  2) I t seemed t o me that the teacher didn't take h i s work very seriously.  2) The teacher i s a hard worker. (the item on t h i s form is positive)  *3) The therapist got across the feeling that we were really working together to understand my problem.  3) The teacher got across the f e e l i n g that we were really working together to help me l e a r n .  3) The t e a c h e r made me feel we were working t o g e t h e r .  *4) T h e r e was definitely a f e e l i n g of mutual trust in my r e l a t i o n s with the therapist.  4) I f e l t s u r e that I c o u l d t r u s t the teacher and he seemed to feel that he could t r u s t me.  4) The t e a c h e r and I . t r u s t one a n o t h e r .  5) The therapist seemed t o want me to maintain p r e t t y c l o s e c o n t r o l over my e m o t i o n s when I was w i t h h i m .  5) The teacher seemed n o t t o want me t o show i t when I was very happy or s a d .  5) The teacher d i d n ' t want me to show when I was happy o r s a d .  104  6) I had t h e f e e l i n g that the t h e r a p i s t was so s y m p a t h e t i c that he couldn't r e a l l y be h e l p f u l .  6) I h a d t h e f e e l i n g that the teacher was so s y m p a t h e t i c that he couldn't r e a l l y be h e l p f u l .  6) The teacher was k i n d but couldn't r e a l l y h e l p me.  *7) The therapist was a very natural, u n a f f e c t e d s o r t of person  7) The t e a c h e r was a very n a t u r a l . He d i d n o t t r y t o be l i k e someone e l s e .  7) The t e a c h e r a c t e d just l i k e himself, s o r t of n a t u r a l .  *8) A s i d e from anything e l s e , the therapist was a likeable fellow.  8) W i t h o u t thinking about anything else, the teacher was a likeable person.  8) The t e a c h e r was a l i k e a b l e person.  9) I somehow c a u g h t the feeling that the therapist c o u l d n ' t r e g a r d me as an e q u a l .  9) I somehow caught the feeling that the teacher couldn't t h i n k of me.as an e q u a l .  9) The teacher thought he was b e t t e r t h a n me.  10) I t seemed a s i f the therapist always lapsed i n t o wordy e x p l a n a t i o n s when he m i g h t have l e t me f i n i s h .  10) I t seemed a s i f the t e a c h e r always started wordy explanations when he might have l e t me f i n i s h .  10) The teacher always talked a l o t and d i d n ' t l e t me f i n i s h what I wanted t o s a y .  *11) I had the f e e l i n g that there was one p e r s o n I could really trust.•  11) I had the feeling t h a t here was one p e r s o n I could really trust.  11) I f e l t I could really trust my teachers.  12) I n e v e r had t h e feeling that the therapist really understood what I was t r y i n g t o g e t across.  12) I n e v e r h a d t h e feeling t h a t the teacher really u n d e r s t o o d what I was t r y i n g t o get across.  12) I never felt that the teacher really understood what I was t r y i n g .. t o s a y a n d d o .  *13) The therapist always seemed to know what I was trying to get a c r o s s t o him.  13) The teacher always seemed to know what I was trying to get a c r o s s t o him.  13) The teacher a l w a y s knew what I was t r y i n g t o d o .  105  14) The therapist o f t e n seemed t o be lost i n h i s own thoughts rather than a t t e n d i n g to what I s a i d .  14) The teacher o f t e n seemed t o be lost i n h i s own thoughts rather than thinking a b o u t what I s a i d .  14) The teacher often paid more attention t o what he was thinking than t o what I said.  *15) I n e v e r h a d t h e feeling that the therapist was i n over h i s depth i n t r y i n g t o h e l p me.  had the 15) I feeling that the teacher knew what he was doing in trying to teach me.  15) I had the feeling that the teacher always knew what he was trying to teach me.  *16) The therapist was anything but c o l d and d i s t a n t .  16) I t was easy t o talk to the t e a c h e r . He seemed interested.  16) I t was easy t o talk tothe t e a c h e r . He seemed interested.  17) I a l w a y s had t h e f e e l i n g t h a t I was just another p a t i e n t as f a r as the t h e r a p i s t was concerned.  17) I a l w a y s h a d t h e f e e l i n g t h a t I was just another student as f a r as the teacher was concerned.  17) I felt teacher really like  18) I often felt, "I'd better not t e l l the t h e r a p i s t that" .  18) I often felt, "I' d better not' tell the teacher that".  18) T h e r e were many things I really couldn't t e l l the teacher.  *19) The therapist seemed t o be i n pretty good c o n t r o l of h i m s e l f at a l l t i m e s .  19) The teacher seemed t o be i n pretty good control'of himself at a l l t i m e s . '  19) The teacher hardly ever lost his temper.  2 0 ) I was a little afraid really to t e l l the t h e r a p i s t what I thought about m y s e l f .  2 0 ) I was a little afraid really to tell the teacher what I thought about myself and the c l a s s .  2 0 ) I was a little a f r a i d to t e l l the t e a c h e r what I was feeling about myself and the class.  _ the didn't me.  106  APPENDIX C TEACHER PUPIL RELATIONSHIP  INVENTORY  The f o l l o w i n g a r e t h e i t e m s o f t h e TPRI u s e d i n t h i s study. For f e m a l e t e a c h e r s , t h e m a s c u l i n e p r o n o u n s were c h a n g e d t o t h e f e m i n i n e f o r m . The a l t e r e d pronouns a r e marked below w i t h a "*". 1.  My  teacher  always  lets  2.  My  teacher  i s a hard  3.  My  teacher  makes me  4.  My  teacher  and I t r u s t  5.  My  teacher  doesn't  6.  My  teacher  i s k i n d but c a n ' t  7.  My  teacher  acts  8.  My  teacher  i s a likable  9.  My  teacher  t h i n k s he* i s b e t t e r t h a n  10.  My t e a c h e r a l w a y s t a l k s I want t o s a y .  11.  I feel  12.  I never feel t h a t my t r y i n g t o s a y and do.  13.  My  14.  My t e a c h e r o f t e n p a y s more a t t e n t i o n t o what he* i s t h i n k i n g t h a n t o what I s a y  15.  I have t h e f e e l i n g t h a t my t r y i n g t o t e a c h me  16.  I t i s easy  17.  I feel  18.  T h e r e a r e many t h i n g s  19.  My  20.  I am a l i t t l e afraid to t e l l a b o u t m y s e l f and t h e c l a s s .  my  teacher  to talk teacher  hardly  we  o u t my  school  are working  each  want me  just  always  figure  work.  worker. feel  I can r e a l l y  teacher  me  like  other. t o show'when I am happy o r s a d . really  help  me.  himself*,  sort  of n a t u r a l .  person.  ' me.  a l o t and d o e s n ' t  trust  my  l e t me  finish  what  teacher.  teacher  knows what  really  I am  teacher.  doesn't  really  I really  understands  trying  teacher  t o my  ever  together.  like  can't  loses his* my  I am  t o do.  always He*  what  knows what he*  seems  is  interested.  me. tell  my  teacher.  temper. teacher  what  I am  feeling  107  APPENDIX  D  EVALUATIVE CRITERIA OF  VOGAN  The f o l l o w i n g i s a l i s t i n g o f t h e o b j e c t i v e s l e a d i n g t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of positive teacher-student relationships and criteria for evaluating the accomplishment of the o b j e c t i v e s a s i d e n t i f i e d by V o g a n . OBJECTIVES  CRITERIA  p r i o r to the e x p e r i e n c e : a. t o g a i n a feeling of self-confidence and ease about the exper i e n c e  1.  become acquainted w i t h the s i t e t o be u s e d 2. have an overnight outdoor experience 3. t a l k w i t h t e a c h e r s who have been t o t h e s i t e 4. a t t e n d meetings and workshops offered that p e r t a i n to the e x p e r i e n c e 5. t o 'take special steps to prepare for those s p e c i f i c a r e a s i n w h i c h work w i l l be done on t h e t r i p  b. t o exhibit sincerity about the purpose of the experience  1.  c . t o seek an awareness the potential of experience  of the  1.  in  1.  d. t o work w i t h planning  students  2. 3.  speak in p o s i t i v e terms to a s s o c i a t e s and s t u d e n t s establish personal goals encourage discussion and positive attitudes among students  prepare with students a l i s t of things related to the trip t h a t you c o u l d do upon returning 2. r e a d several articles concerning outdoor e d u c a t i o n 3. t a l k w i t h s t u d e n t s who have been c a m p i n g and - f i n d out what types of t h i n g s were i m p o r t a n t t o them  2.  3.  work as a participant as w e l l as an a d v i s o r e x p l o r e t h e v a r i o u s ways of grouping f o r a c t i v i t i e s , as w e l l as i d e a s f o r i n d i v i d u a l pursuits i n c l u d e i n t h i n k i n g i d e a s of what you w o u l d l i k e t o l e a r n and do (as a person, not teacher)  108  e. t o guide students in determining goals and behavior patterns  5.  to prepare, with the s t u d e n t s , l i s t s of academic and non-academic things to do work with students in arranging a f i n a l l i s t with a t t e n t i o n t o l e n g t h of time and major emphasis of the program assist the students in preparing working guides f o r accomplishing their goals prepare a l i s t of a c t i v i t i e s t h a t r e q u i r e a g r e e m e n t among students regarding behavior give guidance to the c l a s s in d e t e r m i n i n g t h e behavior to be u s e d a n d a s s i s t them in p r e p a r i n g a copy f o r each student  f. t o a s s i s t students in developing evaluative tools  talk" w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s about the purpose o f e v a l u a t i o n s guide students in d e t e r m i n i n g what t h i n g s n e e d to be e v a l u a t e d work with them in d e t e r m i n i n g a p p r o p r i a t e ways to e v a l u a t e e a c h a r e a give guidance in- p r e p a r i n g the t o o l s f o r e v a l u a t i o n  g. t o a s s i s t students in preparing to coordinate a c t i v i t i e s with other class groups  secure the names and addresses of c l a s s e s and teachers who w i l l be a t t h e s i t e a t t h e same t i m e encourage student representatives to write to the o t h e r groups t o inquire a b o u t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s and t o t e l l them o f y o u r p l a n s invite other groups to participate in activities i f the c l a s s wishes i t h e l p the c l a s s to consider areas of e v e n t s that w i l l require coordinated efforts--such as living s p a c e , d i n i n g room, e t c .  109  outdoor the 2) d u r i n g exper i e n c e : to the a. t o contribute experience 1. p r o f e s s i o n a l l y  2.  b.  as appropriate in planning, s h a r e a hobby w i t h t h e c l a s s p a r t i c i p a t e in planned c l a s s r e c r e a t i o n a l program dress a p p r o p r i a t e l y to the occasion carry out p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t p u r s u i t s , i f p l a n n e d a l s o by the group, and share the i n t e r e s t i f student response would so i n d i c a t e  personally  t o be  an  active  g i v e some d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n to your class as is appropriate prepare appropriate aids, materials, etc . . . . c o n t i n u a t i o n i n this a r e a would r e l a t e c l o s e l y t o on-going role: academic, student 'counselor', necessary d e c i s i o n s , e t c .  'learner'  c. to encourage 'openness' conversational topics  an about  p a r t i c i p a t e ' in at l e a s t one a c t i v i t y as a l e a r n e r try to l e a r n at . l e a s t one new thing as taught by a student participate in special opportunities provided by consultants and other resources try to list the various topics discussed with students during informal conversations — i d e n t i f y t h o s e not u s u a l l y p u r s u e d i n the classroom o b s e r v e c o - w o r k e r s t o see i f you can find topics that they c o n s i d e r 'verboten' see i f you c a n l i s t a new — non s c h o o l p r i e n t e d - - b i t of information about each of your s t u d e n t s . This should be gathered through conversation, not questioning  110  time  schedule yourself 'freetime' a n d be around and available i f s t u d e n t s wish to t a l k with you (doesn't n e e d t o be a n n o u n c e d ) use a s e t ' amount o f time each day for personal renewal—walking, coffee, reading, hcbby, e t c . (this need n o t be t o o e x t e n s i v e , but n e c e s s a r y t o be a t b e s t ) see t h a t each student has un-scheduled time for personal pursuits consider c a r e f u l l y the time spent walking s l o w l y and t a l k i n g — i d e n t i f y the values of t h e s e u n h u r r i e d moments  e. t o a s s i s t students in more effective use of t h e facilities  become familiar with the f a c i l i t i e s and r e s o u r c e s go -- o v e r the available f a c i l i t i e s w i t h s t u d e n t s and d i s c u s s the p o s s i b l e uses of such prepare the students concerning the rules pertaining t o the use of f a c i l i t i e s and i n t e r p r e t t h e reasons  f. t o develop 'forgetfulness' classroom routines  develop teaching approaches t h a t use n a t u r a l materials and do not require a textbook p l a n w i t h s t u d e n t s about the amount a n d n a t u r e o f w r i t t e n work t o be done a t camp e a c h t i m e y o u say--"we must stop and go t o . . . , " or a s i m i l a r p h r a s e , make a note of i t and p u t down t h e r e a s o n i t must be. so ( e x c e p t meals, e t c . ) evaluate the reasons daily--is i t necessary each time? avoid seating students i n a ' c l a s s ' manner overcome any feeling of n e c e s s i t y t o have t h e c l a s s always together i n order to do t h i n g s — d e v e l o p a buddy system f o r a c t i v i t i e s  d. t o u s e t h e a v a i l a b l e more e f f e c t i v e l y  a about  Ill  3) f o l l o w i n g t h e e x p e r i e n c e : a. t o share with the - students i n the e v a l u a t i o n  b. t o bring back to the c l a s s r o o m a n d use new s k i l l s and i d e a s  prior to leaving the site, determine a time f o r the total evaluation f o l l o w t h e e v a l u a t i o n method d e s i g n e d b e f o r e camp discuss with students the need f o r e v a l u a t i o n i n any new a r e a s a s a r e s u l t o f t h e experience — i f yes, proceed d i s c u s s , e x p l a i n , and c a r r y but with t h e s t u d e n t s any o t h e r e v a l u a t i o n s a s may be r e q u e s t e d by o t h e r s not i n c l u d i n g t h e c l a s s l i s t of ideas for follow-up a c t i v i t i e s , can you i d e n t i f y a t l e a s t f o u r new t h i n g s y o u are or c a n use i n the classroom now, that you would not have p r i o r t o t h e exper ience? identify at least four things that you and your s t u d e n t s s h a r e i n t h e way o f new i d e a s o r s k i l l s t h a t a r e or c a n become a p a r t o f y o u r classroom activities.  112  APPENDIX E MINI-COMPUTER  PROGRAM  The f o l l o w i n g i s t h e m i n i - c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m u s e d t o p o s e t h e IPA q u e s t i o n s a n d r e c o r d t h e t e a c h e r s ' r e s p o n s e s . 10 20 30 40 50 60 70  HOME PRINT "HOW MANY STUDENTS IN THE CLASS"; INPUT Z / HOME DIM U ( Z ) : D I M P ( Z ) : D I M F ( Z ) : D I M S ( Z , 5 2 ) : D I M A $ ( Z ) FOR 1=1 TO Z HOME:PRINT "PLEASE TYPE IN THE NAME OF STUDENT " ; I ; " AND PRESS RETURN":INPUT A $ ( l ) 80 NEXT 90 HOME 100 FOR J = l TO 5 2 110 READ Q$,D,N,B 120 FOR 1=1 TO Z 130 HOME:PRINT:PRINT:PRINT Q$:PRINT:PRINT:PRINT A $ ( I ) : P R I N T 140 GET Y $ : I F Y$="" THEN 140 150 I F Y$="Y" THEN R=B:G=D:H=N:GOTO 180 160 I F Y$="N" THEN R=-B:G=-D:H=-N:GOTO 180 ' 170 GOTO 140 180 S ( I , J ) = A S C ( Y $ ) : U ( I ) = U ( I ) + G : P ( I ) = P ( I ) + H : F ( I ) = F ( I ) + R 190 NEXT 200 NEXT 210 HOME:PRINT "THANK YOU!" 220 GET L $ : I F L$ = "" THEN 220 230 FOR 1=1 TO Z 240 HOME 250 PRINT A $ ( I )'; " " ; 260 FOR J = l TO 52 270 PRINT " " ; J ; " = " ;CHR$(S (I , J ) ); " "; 280 NEXT 290 PRINT:PRINT "U=";U(I):PRINT "P=";P(I):PRINT "F=";F(D 300 GET L S : I F L$ = "" THEN 300 310 NEXT 320 PRINT:PRINT "DID YOU GET THEM A L L ? " : INPUT M$ 330 I F LEFT$(M$,1)="N" THEN 230 34 0 HOME 3 50 INPUT "TEACHER'S NAME IS ";W$ 360 HOME 370 D$="": 380 PRINT D$;"OPEN "+W$ 390 PRINT D$;"WRITE "+W$ 400 FOR 1=1 TO Z 410 PRINT A $ ( I ) 420 PRINT U ( I ) 430 PRINT P ( I ) 440 PRINT F ( I ) 4 50 NEXT 460 PRINT D$;"CLOSE "+W$ 470 END 480 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO MAKE OTHERS F E E L HE/SHE DISLIKES  113  THEM?",1,-1,0 490 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO PLOW PERSISTENTLY AHEAD WITH GREAT INERTIA?",-1,-1,1 500 DATA " I S HIS/HER RATE OF GIVING SUGGESTIONS ON GROUP TASKS HIGH?",1,0,1 510 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM ONLY TO PARTICIPATE WHEN OTHERS ASK HIM/HER FOR HIS/HER OPINION?",-1,-1,0 520 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO BE SUBMISSIVELY GOOD?",-1,1,1 530 DATA "DOES HE/SHE TEND MOSTLY TO GIVE OPINION OR ANALYSIS WHEN HE/SHE PARTI CI P A T E S ? " , 0 , 0 , 1 540 DATA "DOES HE/SHE TEND TO SEE OTHERS AS TOO ACCEPTANT OF AUTHORITY?",0,0,-1 550 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO HAVE A GENERAL TRUST IN THE GOODNESS OF OTHERS?",-1,1,0 560 DATA "IS HE/SHE GENERALLY VERY STRONGLY WORK ORIENTED?",0,0,1 570 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO RATE HIMSELF/HERSELF HIGHLY ON A L L GOOD OR SOCIALLY POPULAR T R A I T S ? " , 1 , 1 , 0 580 DATA "DOES HE/SHE HAVE A TENDENCY TO F E E L THAT OTHERS ARE DOMINATING?",0,-1,-1 590 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM GENERALLY PRONE TO FEEL ADMIRATION FOR OTHERS?",0,1,1 - " 600 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO WITHHOLD COOPERATION P A S S I V E L Y ? " , 1,0,-1 610 DATA "DOES HE/SHE RECEIVE A LOT OF L A U G H T E R ? 1 , - 1 , - 1 620 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO CONFINE HIS/HER PARTICIPATION MOSTLY TO ONLY GIVING INFORMATION WHEN A S K E D ? " , - 1 , 0 , 0 630 DATA "DOES HE/SHE ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR GROUP LEADERSHIP?",1,0,1 640 DATA " I S HIS/HER RATE OF RECEIVING DISAGREEMENT GENRALLY HIGH?",1,-1,1 650 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SPEAK L I K E AN AUTOCRATIC AUTHORITY?",1 -1 1 660 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM FRIENDLY IN HIS/HER 3EHAVIOR?",0,1,0 670 DATA "DOES HE/SHE ALWAYS TRY TO SPEAK O B J E C T I V E L Y ? " , 0 , - 1 , 1 680 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO MAKE OTHERS FEEL THEY ARE ENTERTAINING, WARM?",0,1,"1 690 DATA " I S HIS/HER RATE OF DISAGREEMENT GENERALLY HIGH?",0,~ 1,0 700 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM DOMINATING?",1,"1,0 710 DATA "DOES HE/SHE TEND TO DEVALUE HIMSELF/HERSELF?"-.,-1, 0 , 0 720 DATA "IS HIS/HER RATE OF GIVING AGREEMENT GENERALLY HIGH?",0,1,1 730 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO ACCEPT FAILURE AND WITHDRAWL FOR HIMSELF/HERSELF?",-1,-1,-1 740 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO DEMAND PLEASURE AND GRATIFICATION?",1,-1,-1 750 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM VERY EXTROVERTED?",1.0,-1 760 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM UNLIKELY TO AROUSE D I S L I K E S ? " , - 1 , 1 , - 1 770 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO ASSUME THAT HE/SHE WILL BE SUCCESSFUL AND POPULAR?",1,1,-1 780 DATA "DOES. HE/SHE SEEM TO F E E L THAT HIS/HER INDIVIDUAL INDEPENDENCE IS VERY IMPORTANT?",0,-1,0 790 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM PREOCCUPIED WITH WISHFUL FANTASIES?",0,0,-1 800 DATA "IS HIS/HER RATE OF ASKING OTHERS FOR THEIR OPINIONS  114  HIGH?",0,1,0, 810 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO B E L I E V E THAT EQUALITY AND HUMANITARIAN CONCERN FOR OTHERS IS IMPORTANT?",-1,1,1 820 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO BE APPEALING FOR U N D E R S T A N D I N G ? 1,1,-1 8 30 DATA "DOES HE/SHE MAKE MANY JOKES OR SHOW MANY FANTASIES?",0,0,-1 84 0 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SHOW MANY SIGNS OF TENSION AND PASSIVE RESISTANCE?",-1,0,-1 8 50 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM LIKELY TO BE RATED HIGH ON 'LEADERSHIP*?",1,1,1 860 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM OFTEN TO ASK FOR SUGESTIONS OR FOR TASK LEADERSHIP?",-1,0,1 870 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO BE PREOCCUPIED WITH FEELINGS OF D I S L I K E FOR OTHERS?",-1,-1,-1 880 DATA "IS HIS/HER RATE OF PARTICIPATION GENERALLY HIGH?",1,0,0 890 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM RESENTFUL?",-1,-1,0 900 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO EMPHASIZE MODERATION,VALUEDETERMINED RESTRAINT?",0,-1,1 910 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO BE VERY ACCEPTANT OF AUTHORITY?",1,0,1 920 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM WARM AND PERSONAL?",1,1,-1 930 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE OTHERS FEEL LESS ANXIOUS?",1,1,-1 940 DATA "DO YOU FEEL LIKING FOR HIM/HER?2,0,1,-1 950 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM VALUABLE FOR A LOGICAL TASK?",1,1,1 960 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO F E E L ANXIOUS, FEARFUL OF NOT CONFORMING?",-1,-1,1 970 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM P E S S I M I S T I C ABOUT GROUP IDEALS?",0,1,-1 980 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO MAKE OTHERS F E E L HE/SHE ADMIRES THEM?",-1,1,0 990 DATA "DOES HE/SHE SEEM TO RECEIVE A LOT OF INTERACTION FROM OTHERS?",1,0,0 1000 DATA "THANK YOU",0,0,0  115  APPENDIX F ADDITIONAL METHODS OF In  addition  Chapter  4,  two  to  the  alternate  ANALYSIS  analysis  of c o v a r i a n c e  forms o f a n a l y s i s  performed  were p e r f o r m e d  in  on  the  data. Repeated A  Measures repeated  measures  MULTIVARIANCE computer treated The  as  a  factors  three  program. For factor  were d e f i n e d  design  Group with  B)  C l a s s e s w i t h i n groups with  C)  Occasion  The  This  Sample C a s e " any  comparison  groups  Table  used  An  level  In  examination  produced of  Occasion  an  .94. term  permitting  an  being  levels  of  the  the d e s i g n  dependent  was  variable.  comparison) per  group  (A  and  B  i n the  N-  comparison)  on  the  the  design  groups w i l l In  t o the  and  the  in  be  other  in a different  the  this  contained  words,  manner  the  than  the  next.  p o s t t e s t means simple  corresponding  significant  of  the  Groups  to a  for  both  factor.  C l a s s e s w i t h i n G r o u p s by  .0614  found,  TPRI.  "Repeated Measures  p r e t e s t and  of  the  interaction.  factor  no  examination  a  occasion  the  F-ratio With  and  treating  change  one  F . l presents  one  s c o r e s on  effect  should from  with  within  was  (1975).  C l a s s e s w i t h i n Groups  term  D  t h e G r o u p by O c c a s i o n groups  analysis  using  posttest)  treatment  treatment  the  C and  two  i s d e s c r i b e d as  i n Bock  performed  this  (experimental  and  variable  design  fashion,  and  (pretest  dependant  within  levels  experimental  was  as:  A)  within  two  analysis  Occasion  probabilty  C l a s s e s w i t h i n Groups  nested  t h e G r o u p s by  factor  was  Occasion  by  collapsed interaction.  116  The  calculated  interaction  in  probability  level  there  F-ratio  this  study  less  is a significant  present  than  Group  for  the  Group  by  Occasion  was  4.7649  corresponding  .03.  As  one  by  such  Occasion  may  to  a  conclude  interaction  that  in  the  study(p<.05). Table F . l Pretest  and P o s t t e s t and T r e a t m e n t  Group  Pretest  Class A Class B E x p e r i m e n t a l Group Class C Class D Comparison Group  With detected, used  a  Mean  Posttest  64.42 58.36 62.30 56.67 62.52 59.73  significant  graphical  t o examine  Means f o r C l a s s e s Conditions.  displays  the  G r o u p s by  Occasions  66.62 60.64 64.53 52.43 59.57 56.16  Group  procedures  the  nature  interaction  Mean  of  by  Occasion  as d e s c r i b e d i n W i n e r that  and  both  the  being  (1971) were  interaction.  components of  interaction  interaction  Figure  F.l  the C l a s s e s w i t h i n  Groups  by  Occasions  the  s c o r e s of  interaction. As  can  be  seen  the e x p e r i m e n t a l posttest between  first  that  the  not  unexpected  decrease  interpretation groups  scores  and- s e c o n d  of t h i s in  of  f o r the  the  pretest  comparison  groups  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . It should  the  f o r the comparison  findings  interaction their  t h e mean of  between  i n t h e mean s c o r e  in light  improved  the graph,  g r o u p s went up  whereas the the  from  is  perceptions  of  the p i l o t  that of  and  the  decreased be  noted  group  was  study.  The  the  experimental  their  t e a c h e r s when  117  compared  to the groups which d i d not take p a r t  in a  residential  outdoor program. The  interpretation  of  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the a n a l y s i s  this  analysis  confirms  the  of c o v a r i a n c e i n Chapter 4 of the  body"of the t e x t .  F i g u r e F . l : Repeated Measures Groups by Occasion I n t e r a c t i o n C l a s s e s w i t h i n Groups by Occasions I n t e r a c t i o n .  and  118  Analysis  of P i f f e r e n c e s between  This between  analysis scores  posttest,  score  they  is  t o the  equation  experimental  no  obtained  analysis  be  with  obtained  the  expected  treatment  from  difference the  intervention,  but  the  Scores  t o o b t a i n on  a treatment  predicting  was  Observed  calculating  of c o v a r i a n c e  for  students  by  would  t h a t t h e r e was  the a c t u a l  regression  performed  that students  given  similar  was  P r e d i c t e d and  and  intervention. in that  the  p o s t t e s t s c o r e s of  the  the  differs  It  comparison  sample  of  construct  a  students. The  comparison  regression  equation  any  based  student  given was  t h a t ho  The by  the  pilot  to  of  of  comparison  group  the  pretest  that  a  was  then  in  expected  to  p o s t t e s t score for  performance  .8761  u s i n g the  was  again  on  the  would e x i s t .  This  X P r e t e s t Score  above e q u a t i o n regression based  on  pretest, equation  This  developed  i s substantiated  assumption  would  for  the  that  occur,  equation on  + 3.8295  equation  the  perception  + 6.7693.  was  i n the  score.  student  used  the  is basis  no was  almost of  the  responses.  student  change  =  equation  equation  her  an  treatment  student-teacher  to  no  the  comparable  which  identical  each  her  were  be:  .8456 X P r e t e s t S c o r e  for  predict  h i s or  t h a t the  in  This  scores  P o s t t e s t Score  study,  change  on  validity  fact  to  effect  determined Predicted  group  would  then  experimental  This be  t o the  then,  to obtain given  p e r c e p t i o n of  obtained  a p o s t t e s t score  c l a s s e s based  predicted score,  expected  h i s or h e r  compared  a p p l i e d to p r e d i c t  the  upon was  his the  that there  teacher. This  posttest score  by  or  score was score  subtracting  119  the  predicted  difference If  score  no t r e a t m e n t  scores  score  f o r each effects  from  zero.  of the d i f f e r e n c e  than  zero. The  student  i n the  were p r e s e n t ,  scores  t h e two e x p e r i m e n t a l  score  to  t h e mean  be  classes.  n o t be  significantly e f f e c t , the  significantly  higher  d e v i a t i o n s of t h e d i f f e r e n c e  classes,  a  of the d i f f e r e n c e  had a p o s i t i v e  should  yield  experimental  c l a s s e s should  means a n d s t a n d a r d  standard  observed  I f the treatment  mean  and  the  f o r the experimental  different  of  from  as w e l l as t h e i r  scores  combined  mean  d e v i a t i o n a r e d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e F.2. Table  F.2  —  Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f D i f f e r e n c e s Between E x p e c t e d and O b s e r v e d P o s t t e s t S c o r e s  With might  be  hypothesis calculated which  Mean  Class A Class B T o t a l Group  6.35 5.69 6.11  the  thought  that  significantly of  equal  t-value  for  St.Dev. • 6.69 7.28 8.82  the  two e x p e r i m e n t a l  different  from  one  class  means  another,  the  means was t e s t e d u s i n g a t - s t a t i s t i c . the  difference  t h e r e was n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t  classes  were  pooled  to  test  score  f o r the experimental  from  z e r o . The t - v a l u e c a l c u l a t e d  is  ... ~ -  hypothesis  was  The  0.1258  i s non-significant. Since  the  Group  significant Since  beyond a l p h a  t h e mean  between c l a s s  whether  c l a s s e s was  difference,  t h e mean  difference  significantly  different  for this  test  was 5.673 w h i c h  = .001.  f o r the experimental  g r o u p was  significantly  120  higher  than  scored  significantly  the  zero,  comparison  positive  effect.  covariance  the  c o n c l u s i o n was higher  than  that  w o u l d be  classes' . scores  i n the  body of  experimental  expected  (p<.001); t h e  This a n a l y s i s again  performed  the  confirms the  text.  based  treatment  the  group upon had  analysis  a of  121  APPENDIX G ANALYSIS OF  Grade  4's During  the  researcher,  grade  the  level. (n=9)  As  of  residential comparison  as  the  time  B.  program  feel  the  scores  on  the  applying  procedures observed  the  a  for  same g r a d e that  during  the  p r o g r a m . However,  some  formula  and  examination  of  following  the  for this  zero;  5.81. the  This  group  mean  is like  for  predicted  and  i n Appendix  the  group.  F, The  g r o u p was  0.581  is  significantly  the  not  comparison  with  group  a  and  group.  mean f o r t h e G r a d e d e v i a t i o n of  between  previously described  d i f f e r e n c e score  d e v i a t i o n of  standard  behind  an  obtained  experimental  a  t o be  a possibility  through  be  unlike  with  the  reasons  i n the  left  outdoor  regression  from  standard  being  was  The  4  TPRI.  different  The  at  there  Grade  attend  considered  were not  the  r e g a r d l e s s of  not  study.  for obtaining d i f f e r e n c e scores  mean  the  and  gained  mean d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e c a n  standard  the  B  possible,  f o r the  did not  class  as  whole c l a s s  were  they  residential be  to  were a v a i l a b l e  but  study,  p o s t t e s t s c o r e s , as  obtained  the  p u r p o s e s of  i n the  TPRI  students  some r e s e n t m e n t  of  the  unobtrusive  scores These  t o g e n e r a l i z e may  By  the  TPRI  them were t w o f o l d :  period  their  to  f o r the  students  ability  instrument  Class  class  including  might  as  such,  to  of  be  outdoor  not  they  administration  desiring  administered  part  ADDITIONAL DATA  9.80.  d e v i a t i o n of  4's On  on the  the  p r e t e s t was  p o s t t e s t , the  12.74. F i g u r e G . l  56.22 w i t h  a  mean was  54.78  illustrates  these  122  means p l o t t e d on the Groups Appendix  by  Occasions  graph  developed  in  F.  E  PRETEST  5 0 1  POSTTEST  F i g u r e G . l : Grade 4's From C l a s s B Compared to the Group by Occasions I n t e r a c t i o n .  As  can  comparison group  be  seen,  group and  the l i n e  differs  i s not u n l i k e  markedly  from  the l i n e the  f o r the  experimental  line. The  results  Grade 4 p a r t  of  of C l a s s  both the above a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e that B was  behaving, on the TPRI, much  in  the the  123  manner of  the  comparison  Despite as  the  a comparison given  further  supported  body  the  of  Class  p r o b l e m s of  group,  expected  no  fact  change  the  the Grade  that  they  behaved  in perception  c o n c l u s i o n s of  4 part  of  the  of C l a s s  as  their  B  would  be  teacher,  has  within  the  analysis  C  in  a  the  program  the c o m p l e t i o n  residential used  outdoor  by  were  administered  their  r e t u r n t o the completed  suggested first  and  second from  the  the  an  TPRI,  should  be  the  administrations.  i n s p e c t i o n of of  the  scores  and  the  posttest  scores, a comparison  administration  time,  the  scores  from  of  that  this  students  TPRI,  of  scores  may may  not  this  second the  the  give  the  pilot  data  between  the  the  researcher  between data be  obtained reliable.  further study.  the  evidence  -  administration  third  C  these  the  or  Class  following  While  such,  in  to  day  scores  f i n d i n g s ' of of  the  in  As  results  identical  administration  group to the  g r o u p s of  as as the  undertaken.  mean of with  may  the  pretest  52.43  of  behavior  administration  almost  times.  drop  administration  scores  The  a  participated  students  three  third  be  The  for a t h i r d  the  may  B.  instrument  regarding  Class C  p r o g r a m w h i c h was  treating  study  study,  T h i s meant  generalizabilty  By  the  classroom.  there  third  However  the  second  and  of  C l a s s e s A and  the  that  knows n o t h i n g  of  the  using  text.  Following  had  group.  a  the  class  standard  on  the  deviation  ( f o l l o w i n g the  second of  residential  administration 8.22.  outdoor  On  the  program)  was third the  124  mean  was  53.81  with.a  standard  illustrates  Class  C  interaction  graph  from Appendix  °  Figure  As the for  G.2:  can  By  within  the  10.28. F i g u r e  Groups  by  Occasions  POSTTEST  S e c o n d and T h i r d T e s t i n g of C l a s s C Compared G r o u p by O c c a s i o n s I n t e r a c t i o n .  be  seen,  the  group  experimental following  slope  slope  G.2  F.  PRETEST  U  comparison the  embodied  d e v i a t i o n of  and  of  the  line  i s almost  for Class identical  C to  to  the  is unlike the  slope  group. the  procedures  for  obtaining  differences  125  between  the  difference of  expected  score  for Class  6.383 was o b t a i n e d .  zero.  The  conclusion  experimental comparison  The  classes  observed  posttest  C o f 4.047 w i t h  This  mean  is  that  scores,  a standard  is significantly Class  and  does  not  sets  of a n a l y s e s  C  a mean  deviation  different  from  i s now more l i k e t h e  f i t the  pattern  of  the  classes.  above  They do, however, potentially outdoor  and  two  indicate that  generalizable  programs.  a r e i n no way  the f i n d i n g s of  t o other  classes  the  and o t h e r  conclusive. study  are  residential  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055278/manifest

Comment

Related Items