UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Measuring students’ appreciation of poetry Sanderson, Alan Geoffrey 1977

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A47 S25.pdf [ 5.65MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055669.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055669-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055669-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055669-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055669-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055669-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055669-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055669-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055669.ris

Full Text

MEASURING STUDENTS'APPRECIATION OF POETRY by ALAN GEOFFREY SANDERSON B.A., University of Oxford, 1963 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY. OF GRADUATE STUDIES We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA " March, 1977 (c) Alan Geoffrey Sanderson, 1977 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I a g ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r 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 c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d tha 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 f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thou t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i i ABSTRACT The purposes of the study were: (1) to develop and t e s t a new measure, of appreciation of poetry, and (2) to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between appreciation of poetry and (a) creative performance i n poetry, (b) s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y , and (c) subjective assessment by a teacher of a student's l e v e l of appreciation. Following a review of some of the major attempts t h i s century to define and measure appreciation of l i t e r a t u r e , the procedures adopted i n the study were outlined. Based on the findings of the research, i t was decided to employ poetry rather than prose i n the new measure, and design i t s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the j u n i o r secondary l e v e l . The t e s t , c a l l e d the Poem Comparison Test, consisted of twelve poems. Each poem was i n two versions, the o r i g i n a l and an i n f e r i o r i m i t a t i o n , and the subject was asked to rate each of the two versions. In order to measure creative per-formance i n poetry three other measures were also developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f or the study. These measures were: the Rhyme Test, the Rhythm Test, and the Imagery Test. So that the subjects' responses would be as l i t t l e r e s t r i c -ted as p o s s i b l e , a l l three of these tests employed an open-ended format. Two outside markers were employed to score the Rhythm Test and the Imagery Test. S i l e n t reading a b i l i t y was measured by the Gates-McGinitie  Reading Test, Survey E, Form 2M. The subjective assessment of the students' l e v e l of appreciation was measured by a questionnaire, also developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the study, and given to the teachers of the students involved i n the study. The subjects were grade eight and grade ten students i n a large i i i metropolitan secondary school i n an average socio-economic section of the c i t y . The t e s t i n g took place i n A p r i l , 1975, and complete data were obtained f or 95 students. The main questions that the study was designed to answer were: (1) Is there a s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between appreciation of poetry and creative performance i n poetry? (p>.5) (2) Is there a s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between appreciation of poetry and s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y ? (p>.5) (3) Is there a s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between students' appreciation of poetry and t h e i r teachers' assessment of t h e i r l e v e l of appreciation? (p>.5) (4) Do appreciation of poetry and creative performance i n poetry increase from grade eight to grade ten? (a=.01) (5) Are g i r l s b etter than boys i n appreciation of poetry and creative performance i n poetry? (a=.01) Based on the data obtained, the following conclusions were drawn: (1) There i s not a s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between appreciation of poetry and creative performance i n poetry (2) There i s not a s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between appreciation of poetry and s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y (3) There i s not a s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between students' appreciation of poetry and t h e i r teachers' assessment of t h e i r l e v e l of appreciation, (4) Appreciation of poetry increases from grade eight to grade ten, but creative performance i n poetry does not. (5) Girls, are better than boys i n creative performance i n rhyme and rhythm, i v b u t n o t i n a p p r e c i a t i o n o f p o e t r y o r c r e a t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e i n i m a g e r y . T h e o v e r a l l c o n c l u s i o n s f o r t h e s t u d y w e r e : (1) t h e r e i s a f a c t o r o f a p p r e c i a t i o n o f p o e t r y w h i c h i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m b o t h c r e a t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e i n p o e t r y a n d s i l e n t r e a d i n g a b i l i t y , a n d (2) t h a t t h e m e a s u r e o f a p p r e c i a t i o n o f p o e t r y d e v e l o p e d s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t h i s s t u d y c o u l d p r o v i d e a v a l i d t o o l f o r b o t h t h e r e s e a r c h e r a n d t h e c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r . V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES •. ........................ v i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........ • ... . ' ........ v i i i CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM OF MEASURING APPRECIATION OF LITERATURE.. 1 Introduction 1 Behaviours Involved i n Appreciation 4 Conclusion 10 CHAPTER I I . THE BACKGROUND OF RESEARCH 13 Introduction 13 Attempts to Measure Appreciation 14 Studies employing normative measures 14 Normative measures employing prose 17 Normative measures employing poetry 21 Studies employing d e s c r i p t i v e measures 27 Descriptive measures employing poetry 27 Descriptive measures employing prose 29 Conclusion 31 CHAPTER I I I . PROCEDURES • ' ' ...... 33 Introduction 33 Development of the Measures 34 . Research Hypotheses 38 '• Population and Sample 42 Measures Employed 43 Rhyme Test 44 Poem Comparison Test 45 Rhythm Test 47 Imagery Test 48 Teacher Questionnaire 49 Response of the Students to the Tests 50 Marking of the Measures 51 Rhyme Test 52 Poem Comparison Test 53 Rhythm Test 53 Imagery Test 54 Teacher Questionnaire 56 Conclusion 56 CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .... .............. 58 Introduction 58 Item Analysis 59 Rhyme Test 59 Poem Comparison Test 61 Rhythm Test 62 Imagery Test 64 Teacher Questionnaire 66 Corr e l a t i o n Analysis 67 Analysis ^  of.LVariance- •- . 69 Conclus±ojjjs i o n 73 v i Page CHAPTER V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............ 75 Summary 75 Interpretation of the Findings 79 Weaknesses of the Study 84 Implications f o r Research 87 Implications f o r Teaching 89 APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF THE MEASURES OF.APPRECIATION DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER II .... . . . . 92 APPENDIX B. THE FULL FORMS OF THE MEASURES DEVELOPED FOR.THE STUDY ' • '. . 96 Rhyme Test 97 Poem Comparison Test 98 Rhythm Test 112 Imagery Test 117 Teacher Questionnaire 121 APPENDIX C. INFORMATION BASED ON PARTIAL DATA.... . 122 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ' 125 v i i LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES P a 8 e 1. Rhyme Test: P l o t of Mean Scores.... 71 2. Rhythm Test: Plot of Mean Scores..................... 72 3. Poem Comparison Test: P l o t of Mean Scores............ 72 TABLES 1. Students Involved i n the Study 43 2. Rhyme Test: C o r r e l a t i o n Matrix 60 3. Poem Comparison Test: Item Analysis.................. 61 4. Rhythm Test: Item Analysis 63 5. Imagery Test: Item Analysis 65 6. Teacher Questionnaire: Item Analysis 66 7. Co r r e l a t i o n Matrix: T o t a l Scores (Complete Data) 67 8. Factor Analysis: T o t a l Scores (Complete Data)........ 68. 9. C e l l Means and Standard Deviations............ 69 10. Analyses of Variance 70 11. Co r r e l a t i o n Matrix: T o t a l Scores and Sub-scores '"•*•> . ( P a r t i a l Data) 123 12. Number of Simultaneous Observations 124 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would l i k e to take t h i s opportunity to express h i s thanks to the following members of the Faculty of Education f o r the encouragement, help and patient understanding that they showed towards him during the writ i n g of th i s t h e s i s : Professors S. Butler, D. Rodgers, M. Ralston, T. Rogers and R. Conry. In addition, the author would l i k e to acknowledge h i s indebtedness to CR. Cooper, whose a r t i c l e on the measurement of l i t e r a r y appreciation i n the Spring 1971 e d i t i o n of Research i n the Teaching of English provided the o r i g i n a l i n s p i r a t i o n f o r t h i s t h e s i s . CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM OF MEASURING APPRECIATION OF LITERATURE Introduction Few problems i n education o f f e r the teaching profession so much of a challenge as the measurement of appreciation, e s p e c i a l l y i n the area that a f f e c t s the greatest number of s t u d e n t s — l i t e r a t u r e . In the past there has been an understandable tendency on the part of English teachers to ignore the problem completely, or at best to deal with i t i n a h a l f -hearted and i n e f f e c t i v e fashion. The pressure currently exerted on teachers to develop measurable hehay.&;o.ur:all objectives f o r every aspect of education i s , however, f o r c i n g the English teacher to think harder about three c l o s e l y r e l a t e d aspects of h i s task: (1) h i s aims i n teaching l i t e r a t u r e , (2) h i s methods of achieving those aims, and (3) h i s means of evaluating student progress i n t h i s area. I t i s with the l a s t problem that t h i s study i s c h i e f l y concerned i n that i t examines the various methods that have been used to measure appreciation of l i t e r a t u r e and describes the development and te s t i n g of a new measure of appreciation of poetry. English teachers have always claimed that one of t h e i r major goals i n teaching l i t e r a t u r e i s to develop t h e i r students' appreciation of the l i t e r a t u r e they read. The reason f o r t h e i r reluctance, however, a c t u a l l y 1 2 to attempt to measure what they professed to be teaching is.not d i f f i c u l t to see, f o r i t l i e s i n the nature of appreciation i t s e l f . How have writers on aesthetics and l i t e r a r y theory viewed appreciation? Here are a few examples: Whatever else most poems do, they usually succeed i n presenting a complex aesthetic object which i s the source and o r i g i n of the complex act of a p p r e c i a t i o n . 1 Appreciation... means taking things f o r values found i n them d i r e c t -l y , and not as a r e s u l t of a n a l y s i s . 2 The appreciation of a poems i s the experiencing, the r e a l i z a t i o n of a e s t h e t i c a l l y valuable q u a l i t i e s . . . present i n the poem f o r any competent reader. 3 I t i s c l e a r that appreciation i s not only a complex mental process, but i t also involves the expression of value and enjoyment, and f o r t h i s reason i t belongs more i n the a f f e c t i v e than the cognitive domain of behaviour. Teachers have always been more reluctant to measure a f f e c t i v e objectives than cognitive objectives. As Bloom has observed, " . . . a f f e c t i v e objectives are frequently mentioned by teachers but they are [in contrast to cognitive objectives] l i t t l e emphasized and r a r e l y measured. I | l t The reasons given for t h i s reluctance have usually been: (1) the al l e g e d l y great length of time needed to achieve a measurable change i n student attitude compared with student knowledge, (2) a b e l i e f on the ^HMiB'lack"-, "Some Questions About Emotive Meaning," iniJ'A Symposium on Emotive Meaning" by Black and others, The P h i l o s p h i c a l Review, Vol. 57 (1948), p. 115. 2 L . Stein, Appreciation: Painting, Poetry and Prose (New York: Crown Publishers, 1947.),; p..6.65. 3R. Wellek, Theory of Literature$( New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc., 1956) p.?249/ 4B.S. Bloom and others, Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation  of Student Learning, (New York:; McGraw-Hill Inc., 1971} ,, p . - 226. . 3 part of society that an i n d i v i d u a l ' s attitudes are a p r i v a t e rather than a p u b l i c matter, and (3) the f a r greater d i f f i c u l t i e s involved i n measur-ing student a t t i t u d e compared with student knowledge. Of these arguments the l a s t i s probably the most i n f l u e n t i a l . Nevertheless, i t i s now generally agreed that a f f e c t i v e objectives are a legitimate area of concern for teachers, and that i f they are to be pursued they must be measured; other-wise we have no means of evaluating our i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods. For the English teacher the consequences of t h i s d ecision are that before "appre-c i a t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e " can be measured, the behaviours.evidencing i t must be operationally defined. English teachers have been among the least e n thusiastic about framing behavioural objectives f o r t h e i r subject i n general, and the teaching of l i t e r a t u r e i n p a r t i c u l a r . There has been good reason for t h e i r p o s i t i o n , however, because "the goals of teaching l i t e r a t u r e are more numerous and more subtly complicated than those of many other areas of education." 1 The danger of " t r i v i a l i z a t i o r i * " . ! inherent i n the excessive use of behavioural objectives, i s e s p e c i a l l y great i n the study of l i t e r a t u r e , where a teacher needs to measure "the gleam i n the student's eye." 2 Hook summarized the p o s i t i o n of the d i r e c t o r s of a t r i - u n i v e r s i t y study of behavioural objec-t i v e s thus: JW. Loban, "Evaluating growth i n the study of l i t e r a t u r e , " English  Journal, Vol. 37 ( 1 9 4 8 ) , p. 277. 2J.N. Hook, "The T r i - U n i v e r s i t y BOE P r o j e c t : A Progress Report," On Writing Behavioural Objectives for English, ed. John Maxwell and Anthony Tovatt (Champaign, I l l i n o i s : National Council of Teachers of English, 1970), p. 82. 4 I t must be endlessly repeated... that because of the nature of English some" aspects of i t do not lend themselves to completely r e l i a b l e non-subjective measurement, e s p e c i a l l y at the time when the in-school learning i s o c c u r r i n g . 1 The problem for the English teacher i n t r y i n g to measure appreciation has been well stated by another writ e r i n t h i s way: What we want to measure i s complex but subjective; the methods we have to work with are objective but simple. The problem, then, i s to make our goals more objective and our measures more complex. 2 I t i s apparent that the task of defining appreciation of l i t e r a t u r e i n o b j e c t i v e l y measurable terms must present the English teacher with a considerable challenge. Behaviours Involved i n Appreciation What exactly are the behaviours involved i n l i t e r a r y appreciation that make i t s measurement such a problem? Let us look at some of the attempts to describe them that have been made t h i s century. Not a l l writers a c t u a l l y used the term "appreciation" to r e f e r to the a c t i v i t y f or which they were attempting to o u t l i n e behaviours. Terms such as "reaction to reading" and "response to l i t e r a t u r e " have, therefore,been interpreted as being more or less synonomous with appreciation i n so f a r as they included the a f f e c t i v e behaviours of responding, enjoying and valuing. ^ b i d . , p. 82. 2G.A. Forehand, "Problems of Measuring Response to L i t e r a t u r e , " Clearing House, Vol. 40 (1966), p. 369. 5 Three writers who defined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between cognitive and a f f e c t i v e behaviours i n appreciation were C a r r o l l , Pooley, and E a r l y . 1 C a r r o l l divided appreciation into three sub-categories: (1) a s e n s i t i v i t y to style, (2) an a b i l i t y to appreciate i n t e l l e c t u a l l y the deeper meanings of a l i t e r a r y work, and (3) an emotional capacity to respond to the f i n e shades of meaning i n the best w r i t e r s . 2 He did not, however, f e e l that a student would n e c e s s a r i l y be equally strong i n a l l three areas of appreciation. C a r r o l l ' s three sub-categories do not appear to be e n t i r e l y d i s c r e t e ; the f i r s t and t h i r d , f o r example, seem to overlap some-what. Nevertheless i t i s c l e a r that C a r r o l l f e l t that appreciation consisted of a cognitive b e h a v i o u r ^ - r ^ i n t e l l e c t u a l -understanding, and an a f f e c t i v e behaviour,—=r lemotionaleresponse. Pooley developed C a r r o l l ' s d i s t i n c t i o n between the two aspects of appreciation when he divided appreciation into two processes which he l a b e l l e d "fundamental recognition" and "secondary response.',"3 A funda-mental recognition he defined as an emotional response to the techniques of l i t e r a t u r e such as we might f i n d i n a c h i l d ' s reaction to a nursery ^.A. C a r r o l l , "A Method of Measuring Prose Appreciation," English  Journal, Vol.22 (1933), pp. 184-189; R.C. Pooley, "Measuring the Appreciation of L i t e r a t u r e , " English Journal, Vol. 24 (1935), pp. 627-633; Ms. Early, "Stages of Growth i n L i t e r a r y Appreciation," English Journal, Vol. 49 (March 1960), pp. 161-167. 2 2 C a r r o l l , p. 184. 3Pooley, p. 630. 6 rhyme: the c h i l d enjoys i t without r e a l l y knowing why. According to Pooley, t h i s response i s " l a r g e l y u n i d e n t i f i e d , unapprehended, and non-communicable i n words." I t i s , however, an e s s e n t i a l p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r the secondary response which " a r i s e s from an i n t e l l e c t u a l apprehension of the tec h n i c a l s k i l l of the a r t i s t and the content of the sel e c t i o n s " 1 Pooley's fundamental recognition i s obviously an a f f e c t i v e behaviour, and the secondary response has, at l e a s t , a large cognitive component. Pooley went further than C a r r o l l , however, i n i n s i s t i n g that the a f f e c t i v e response had to precede the cognitive response. E a r l y e s s e n t i a l l y followed Pooley's approach when she outlined the three main stages of growth that she-saw i n l i t e r a r y appreciation. She f i r s t noted that the p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n known to e x i s t between i n t e r -p r e t i v e reading s k i l l s and i n t e l l i g e n c e suggested that growth i n appre-c i a t i o n was affected by mental maturity. She pointed out, however, that superior i n t e l l i g e n c e would not ensure a s e n s i t i v e emotional response — i n her opinion, an important aspect of a p p r e c i a t i o n . 2 Early's three stages of growth i n l i t e r a r y appreciation were: (1) unconscious enjoyment, (2) self-conscious appreciation, and (3) conscious d e l i g h t . According to Ea r l y , unconscious enjoyment i s an e s s e n t i a l stage i n the development of l i t e r a r y appreciation. The reader has f i r s t to be convinced that l i t e r a t u r e affords pleasure. At the l e v e l of self-conscious appreciation, the reader begins to ask why, and looks f o r l o g i c a l answers. Vlhid. 2 E a r l y , p. 163. 7 These two stages correspond closely to Pooley's "fundamental recognition" and "secondary response" in that the f i r s t stage is a purely affective behaviour whereas the second is a largely cognitive one. At the highest level of appreciation, conscious delight, the affective and cognitive behaviours are in complete harmony; the reader responds with delight, knows why, relies on his own judgment, and chooses discriminatingly. Unfortunately however, not a l l readers, according to.Early, are necessarily capable of reaching this l e v e l . 1 Since the early 1940's other educators have attempted to categorize the various behaviours, both cognitive and affective, generally considered desirable in connection with literature. Although, as we have just seen, appreciation includes a cognitive component, the primary and essential component is the affective response. Therefore i t is not surprising that those behaviours which seemed most germane to appreciation were affective behaviours. In 1942, for example, the Committee on the Evaluation of Reading of the Progressive Education Association set forth seven aspects of "reaction to reading", a l l of which were affective behaviours. 2 The seven aspects were: 1) satisfaction in the thing appreciated 2) desire for more of the thing appreciated 3) desire to know more of the thing appreciated 4) desire to express one's self creatively 5) identification of one's self with the thing appreciated 6) desire to cl a r i f y one's thinking with regard to the thing appreciated 7) desire to evaluate the thing appreciated 3 " ilbidT, pp. 163-166. •2E.R. Smith and R.W. Tyler, "Aspects of Appreciation," Chapt. 4 in Appraising and Recording Student Progress* (New York.: Harper and Brothers, 1942)., pp. 245-276. 3Ibid., pp. 248-249. 8 T h e c o m m i t t e e d i d n o t d e f i n e t h e t e r m " t h e t h i n g a p p r e c i a t e d " w h i c h a p p e a r s i n s i x o f t h e s e v e n b e h a v i o u r s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t s c o n s t a n t r e p e t i t i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e y c o n s i d e r e d a l l t h e s e b e h a v i o u r s t o b e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o a p p r e c i a t i o n . I n 1 9 4 4 W h i t e a n d E n o c h s c o m p o s e d a s e r i e s o f o b j e c t i v e s f o r r e a d i n g a n d i n t e r p r e t i n g l i t e r a t u r e . 1 T h e i r f i f t h o b j e c t i v e , " t h e s t u d e n t r e a c t s t o h i s r e a d i n g e m o t i o n a l l y a n d i m a g i n a t i v e l y , " i s a t t h e s a m e t i m e t h e m o s t a f f e c t i v e o f t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s a n d t h e o n e m o s t c o n n e c t e d w i t h a p p r e -c i a t i o n . T h e f o u r s u b - c a t e g o r i e s w h i c h t h e y l i s t e d f o r t h i s b e h a v i o u r c o n f i r m t h a t i t i s i n d e e d a n i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t o f a p p r e c i a t i o n : 1 ) h e [ t h e s t u d e n t ] e n t e r s v i c a r i o u s l y i n t o l i t e r a r y s i t u a t i o n s 2 ) h e e n j o y s t h e b e a u t i f u l , t u m o r o u s , f a n t a s t i c . . . i n l i t e r a t u r e 3 ) h e i s s e n s i t i v e t o d i c t i o n a n d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s a n d a r t i s t r y o f f o r m 4 ) h e r e s p o n d s t o t h e s y s t e m o f v a l u e s e x p r e s s e d b y t h e a u t h o r . 2 O n e o f t h e m o s t r e c e n t a t t e m p t s t o o u t l i n e t h e b e h a v i o u r s e x p e c t e d o f s t u d e n t s i n r e l a t i o n t o l i t e r a t u r e w a s m a d e b y a s u b - c o m m i t t e e o f t h e N a t i o n a l A s s e s s m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r e s s . 3 T h e y f i r s t p r o p o s e d " f i v e t e n t a t i v e g o a l s t h a t s t u d e n t s s h o u l d s t r i v e f o r i n l i t e r a t u r e , " w h i c h w e r e : 1 ) u n d e r s t a n d t h e m e a n i n g o f a w o r k 2 ) r e l a t e p a r t s o f t h e w o r k t o t h e w h o l e 3 ) m a k e a n d d e f e n d a n e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e w o r k 4 ) r e s p o n d a t a p e r s o n a l l e v e l t o a l i t e r a r y w o r k 5 ) u n d e r s t a n d t h e b a s i c m e t a p h o r s t h r o u g h w h i c h m a n h a s e x p r e s s e d h i s v a l u e s a n d t e n s i o n s i n W e s t e r n c u l t u r e . 1 * O f t h e s e g o a l s t h e m o s t o b v i o u s l y a f f e c t i v e a r e t h e t h i r d a n d f o u r t h , w h i c h a r e a l s o t h e o n e s m o s t r e l a t e d t o a p p r e c i a t i o n . 1 V . W h i t e a n d J . B . E n o c h s , " T e s t i n g t h e R e a d i n g a n d I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f L i t e r a t u r e , " E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , V o l . 3 3 ( 1 9 4 4 ) , p p . 1 7 1 - 1 7 7 . 7 2 I b i d . , p . 1 7 4 . N a t i o n a l A s s e s s m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r e s s , L i t e r a t u r e O b j e c t i v e s ( A n n A r b o r : M i c h i g a n ^ 1 9 7 0 . ) . ^ I b i d . , p . 5 . 9 Based on the f i v e tentative goals the committee established the f o l l o -wing three broad objectives f or students i n l i t e r a t u r e : 1) read l i t e r a t u r e of excellence 2) become engaged i n , f i n d meanings i n , and evaluate a work of l i t e r a t u r e 3) develop a continuing i n t e r e s t and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n l i t e r a t u r e and the l i t e r a r y experience. 1 A l l three of these objectives, but the l a s t two i n p a r t i c u l a r , are a f f e c t i v e . However, the problem of .measuring these objectives, mentioned e a r l i e r i n the chapter, again becomes clear when one examines the behaviours suggested by the committee for assessing the attainment of these objectives f or three sample ages: nine, t h i r t e e n , and seventeen. For each age the predominant verbs are "know," "recognize," " i d e n t i f y , " " t r a n s l a t e , " "apply," and " d i s t i n g u i s h , " a l l of which (with the possible exception of the l a s t ) are cognitive behaviours. How such cognitive behaviours can be used to measure a f f e c t i v e objectives i s not explained by the committee. F i n a l l y , two writers who have categorized the behaviours involved i n a student's t o t a l response to l i t e r a t u r e are Forehand and Purves. 2 Both writers f e l t that response to l i t e r a t u r e includes both a f f e c t i v e and cognitive behaviours, although the terms used by each are s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t . Forehand l i s t e d the four sides of response to l i t e r a t u r e as: (1) understanding, (2) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , (3) evaluation, and (4) taste. Of these behaviours the f i r s t two are l a r g e l y cognitive and the l a s t two l a r g e l y a f f e c t i v e . Purves also had four categories of response: 1 I b i d . , pp. 8-14. ; 2Forehand, pp. 369-375; A.C. Purves, "Evaluation of Learning i n . L i t e r a t u r e , " i n Handbook on:Formative arid Summative Evaluation of Student  Learning,., ed. B. Bloom and others., (New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1971), pp. 702-744. -10 (1) engagement, (2) perception, (3) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and (4) evaluation. Of these categories perception and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n are mainly cognitive, and engagement and evaluation mainly a f f e c t i v e . Despite the s u p e r f i c i a l differences i n terminology, the two w r i t e r s ' categories of response are r e a l l y quite s i m i l a r . I f we assume that Purves' category of perception i s very close to Forehand's category of understanding, then three of the four categories presented by each writ e r are the same: perception-understanding, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and evaluation. L e f t remaining are Forehand's category of taste and Pur.ves' category of engagement. Purves, who developed h i s categories i n considerably more d e t a i l than Forehand, considered taste to be r e a l l y a sub-category of evaluation i n that i t was simply the expression of a pattern of preference. The importance of h i s own category of engagement Purves j u s t i f i e d by a reference to Squire's f i n d i n g that: Involved readers... tend to be superior readers i n that they open themselves to a maximum of facets, accommodate imaginatively the widest possible number of avenues to the l i t e r a r y experience. 1 His l a s t category, evaluation, Purves f e l t was the highest of the four orders of response since i t always depended on at l e a s t one of the previous three. Conclusion While appreciation consists, as we have seen, of both an a f f e c t i v e and a cognitive component, the primary and more important component i s the a f f e c t i v e . For appreciation to e x i s t at a l l the act of reading must !j.R. Squire, The Responses of Adolescents while Reading Four Short  Stories. (Champaign;~, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1964) > pp. 22-23. 11 be a pleasurable experience, one that involves or engages the reader. Pooley, E a r l y , Purves and Squire a l l stressed the fundamental importance of the a f f e c t i v e response at any l e v e l of appreciation. Even though a cognitive response, i n the form of an i n t e l l e c t u a l understanding of the techniques used by writers to achieve t h e i r e f f e c t s , becomes increasing-l y important as one's a b i l i t y to appreciate develops, the a f f e c t i v e response remains paramount. Evaluation, as the highest l e v e l of appreciation, involves both an a f f e c t i v e and a cognitive response, but i t i s s t i l l p r i m a r i -l y an a f f e c t i v e behaviour. I t would seem to follow, therefore, that any attempt.to measure appreciation should include a measure of evaluation, and further that t h i s measure would ne c e s s a r i l y test a student's a f f e c t i v e rather than cognitive response to l i t e r a t u r e . With these considerations i n mind, the following questions are the major ones that t h i s study w i l l attempt to answer: 1. Is measurement of appreciation possible, and w i l l an instrument show both growth and differences i n appreciation? 2. Does appreciation develop measurably i n secondary school? 3. Are there any differences between g i r l s and boys i n appreciation? 4 . What i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between appreciation and creative performance i n l i t e r a t u r e ? 5. What i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between appreciation and reading a b i l i t y ? The f i n a l two questions are included as part of the study because they cover areas which might w e l l prove f r u i t f u l to explore. The answers to these two questions w i l l help to determine whether appreciation of l i t e r a t u r e i s a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from e i t h e r creative a b i l i t y 12 i n l i t e r a t u r e or reading a b i l i t y . A l l of the above questions are, or should be, of i n t e r e s t to English teachers, and yet there i s at the moment l i t t l e f i r m evidence upon which to base conclusions. This study w i l l attempt to provide such evidence. CHAPTER II THE BACKGROUND OF RESEARCH Introduction Despite the d i f f i c u l t and perhaps even c o n t r o v e r s i a l nature of the task, a number of attempts to measure appreciation of l i t e r a t u r e have been made. There have, however, been.very few published tests of appreciation. Only one such test i s currently a v a i l a b l e , The Rigg Poetry Judgment Test, published i n 1942.1 Most of the s o - c a l l e d " l i t e r a t u r e t e s t s , " f or example, published by the major d i s t r i b u t o r s of educational t e s t i n g materials, cannot be considered v a l i d tests of appreciation since they confine themselves to measuring a purely cognitive response. They generally ask only t r i v i a l questions of the " t r u e - f a l s e " type, which te s t only a student's knowledge of l i t e r a t u r e or h i s comprehension of a p a r t i c u l a r passage. One exception i s the Iowa L i t e r a t u r e Test which uses more.allusive and imaginative passages than most tests of t h i s type, and even asks questions dealing with matters of s t y l e as w e l l as matters of content. 2 This test i s also one ^.G. Rigg, The Rigg Poetry Judgment Test (Iowa C i t y : Bureau of Edu-c a t i o n a l Research and Service, State University of Iowa, 1942). 2 " A b i l i t y to Interpret L i t e r a r y M a t erials," Test 7 i n Iowa Tests of  Educational Development (Chicago, Science Research Associates, 1970). 13 14 of the very few to include passages of poetry as w e l l as containing passages of prose. Even t h i s t e s t , however, comes no closer to measuring a student's a f f e c t i v e response to a passage than asking him to s e l e c t an adjective that best describes i t s tone. In the absence of commercial t e s t s , therefore, we must r e l y almost e x c l u s i v e l y on research material to provide us with information regarding the various attempts that have been made to measure appreciation. Attempts to Measure Appreciation The bulk of the studies that have examined a f f e c t i v e response to l i t e r a t u r e have employed ei t h e r normative or d e s c r i p t i v e measures; that i s , either they have used a multiple-choice format with one response considered correct (normative measures), or they have t r i e d to analyze the various types of response without n e c e s s a r i l y trying to determine whether one type was correct or superior to another ( d e s c r i p t i v e measures). In the research l i t e r a t u r e , studies employing normative measures have considerably out-numbered those using d e s c r i p t i v e measures. 1 Studies employing normative measures An early researcher i n the f i e l d expressed succingtly the two aspects to the problem faced by the researcher engaged i n t h i s type of research: LA summary of the measures of appreciation described i n t h i s chapter i s given i n Appendix A. 15 The attempt to measure l i t e r a r y taste i s thus subject to a double d i f f i c u l t y ; the s e l e c t i o n of the material that i s considered to be of l i t e r a r y merit, and the assessment of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s reaction to the m a t e r i a l . 1 The f i r s t d i f f i c u l t y , the s e l e c t i o n of the material, Fox overcame by choosing h i s material from "acknowledged c l a s s i c a l sources of l i t e r a t u r e , " a p r a c t i c e that, with modifications, has been followed by test-constructors ever s i n c e . 2 The material selected for the tests has been generally taken, i f not from c l a s s i c a l sources, at least from writers of established reputation, whereas Fox, however, was.prepared to accept a writer's reputation as a s u f f i c i e n t proof of merit, l a t e r researchers have been more circumspect. I t has become common p r a c t i c e , for example, to submit the proposed items on a test to a panel of "expert" judges — u n i v e r s i t y professors, teachers, l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s , and graduate students i n E n g l i s h — and only where there i s a high l e v e l of agreement among the judges i n t h e i r response to an item i s that item retained. Although t h i s procedure i s c l e a r l y an improvement over the e a r l i e r rather t r u s t i n g assumption that whatever a well-known author wrote was automatically of high q u a l i t y , i t i s c e r t a i n l y not fool-proof. The v a l i -d i t y of adult judges' responses must be somewhat suspect simply by v i r t u e of t h e i r f a r greater f a m i l i a r i t y with l i t e r a t u r e . Can the test-constructor always be sure, f o r example, that the expert has approved a piece because of i t s i n t r i n s i c merit? Could i t not also be possible that he e i t h e r recognizes the piece outright or at l e a s t recognizes q u a l i t i e s i n the 1C. Fox, "The method of t e s t i n g l i t e r a r y appreciation," B r i t i s h  Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 21 (1938), p.2. 2 I b i d . 16 piece that could act as clues? I t would, a f t e r a l l , be an almost impossible task to f i n d many pieces of w r i t i n g that were of unquestionable merit and at the same time completely unknown to a l l the expert judges a t e s t -constructor might use. Cooper, noting that most of these tests were vali d a t e d on "mature" judges, suggested that: If the tests are to be used with high-school students, then aesthe-t i c a l l y s e n s i t i v e and responsive high-school students, so i d e n t i -f i e d by t h e i r teachers, could provide the source of v a l i d i t y . 1 This suggestion i s i n t e r e s t i n g and deserves serious consideration. I t would appear, however, that i t has not yet been acted upon. The second problem mentioned by Fox, the assessment of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s reaction to the material, has generally been tackled i n the normative measures by asking the student to express a preference, either by pre-f e r r i n g one s e l e c t i o n to another or by rank-ordering a number of competing s e l e c t i o n s . The behaviour measured by t h i s method i s r e a l l y that of evaluation, although terms such as "judgment" and " d i s c r i m i n a t i o n " as well as "appreciation" are used by the authors of these t e s t s . Evaluation i s , as we have seen i n the previous chapter, the highest l e v e l of appreci-a t i o n and involves both an a f f e c t i v e and cognitive response. I t i s , therefore, a v a l i d behaviour for tests of appreciation to measure. A number of v a r i a t i o n s on the basic p r i n c i p l e of assessing student preference i n l i t e r a t u r e have been t r i e d . In the research l i t e r a t u r e measures using poetry have outnumbered those using prose. The most l i k e l y explanation f o r t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s that, since a l l these tests require a - ^.R. Cooper, "Measuring appreciation of l i t e r a t u r e : a review of attempts," Research i n the Teaching of English, Vol. 5 (Spring 1971), p. 14. 17 student to react to previously unread material, the greater density of l i t e r a r y techniques i n poetry allows a greater number of items to be presented i n the same t e s t . Normative measures employing prose. C a r r o l l devised a test of prose appreciation for high school students. 1 I t consisted of twelve sets of four passages, a l l on the same subject and a l l about one hundred words i n length, but a l l d i f f e r i n g i n q u a l i t y . The best s e l e c t i o n s were taken from writers of repute, the second-best from lesser authors, the t h i r d best from cheap magazines, and the worst were deliberate mutilations of the best pieces. The student was asked to rank the four passages i n order, of merit. The test was v a l i d a t e d on s i x t y - f i v e experts — l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s , u n i v e r s i t y l e c t u r e r s , and teachers. C a r r o l l claimed a r e l i a b i l i t y co-e f f i c i e n t of .71 f o r e i t h e r the s p l i t halves or r e - t e s t methods. 2 The test was published but i s now out of p r i n t . C a r r o l l f r e e l y admitted that h i s t e s t , by using short extracts, i n e v i t a b l y focussed mainly on matters of s t y l e , and therefore did not measure a student's a b i l i t y to appreciate a complete prose work such as a novel or short story. Based on h i s own experience as a teacher, however, he f e l t that the c o r r e l a t i o n between his test and any broader measure of appreciation would be h i g h . 3 Williams, Winter and Woods constructed several appreciation t e s t s , ^.A. C a r r o l l , "A Method of Measuring Prose Appreciation," E n g l i s h  Journal, V o l . 22 (1933), pp. 184-189. 2 I b i d . , p. 188. 3 I b i d . , p. 189. 18 for both poetry and prose, designed f o r high-school students. 1 Although the researchers did not mention a source of v a l i d i t y f o r t h e i r t e s t s , i t i s apparent that they r e l i e d , at l e a s t i n part, on authors of acknow-ledged reputation. The f i v e measures that employed prose were: (1) Age Scale Test (A) (2) Ranking Method Test (B) (3) Paired Comparison Test (C) (4) T r i p l e Comparison Test - Sentences (D) (5) T r i p l e Comparison Test - Prose Extracts (E) In the Age Scale Test, the students were asked to rank in.order of merit f i f t e e n compositions a l l dealing with the same subject, "school," but displaying a range of maturity. How the correct order of ranking was determined was not mentioned. In the Ranking Method Test, the students had to .sort twenty short extracts of varying merit into three categories -those l i k e d , those d i s l i k e d , and those neither l i k e d nor d i s l i k e d . In • the Paired Comparison Test, the student was presented with t h i r t y items, each consisting of two a l t e r n a t i v e forms of the same sentence. The student was asked to declare a preference f o r one of the forms. In the T r i p l e Comparison Test-Sentences, the student was asked to rankrorder three versions of the same sentence. In each case the merit of the best sentence lay i n either (1) i t s sound, or (2) i t s l o g i c a l construction, or (3) the aptness of p a r t i c u l a r words. In the T r i p l e Comparison Test-Prose Extracts, the student was asked to rank-order three short extracts on the same subject. In each case the best passage had been taken from 1E.D. Williams and others, "Tests of L i t e r a r y A p p r e c i a t i o n , " B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 8 ( 1938 ) , p p . 265 -283 . 19 The Oxford Book of Prose, the second-best from "an author of intermediate type," and the worst from a popular magazine. 1 The subjects used i n the research were a l l g i r l s aged 11-17, from d i f f e r e n t types of school. Even though the researchers were s c e p t i c a l about the r e l i a b i l i t y c o - e f f i c i e n t s f or t h e i r t e s t s , they claimed r e l i a -b i l i t i e s ranging from .36 to .94 for the various t e s t s . The authors did not give d e t a i l e d r e s u l t s f o r each t e s t , but i n a general assessment of the tests they found Test A to be the l e a s t s a t i s f a c t o r y , and Tests B and C to be the most e f f e c t i v e . Tests D and E were both found harder by the students, but Test D was nevertheless very e f f e c t i v e while Test E was n o t . 2 The tests were never published. Harpin devised a test consisting of nine matched pai r s of extracts from novels, without clues as to author or source, and varying considerably i n degree of l i t e r a r y m e r i t . 3 A tenth section consisted of four passages to be arranged i n the student's order of preference. For each item the student was asked to give a reason for h i s choice. C r i t e r i a of excellence for the passages were: (1) reputable source, (2) expert opinion, and (3) Harpin's own l i t e r a r y judgment. The t e s t was f i r s t v a l i d a t e d on English teachers, and then administered to 126 high-school students, aged 15-18, and s i x t y t e a c h e r s - i n - t r a i n i n g . Using the t e s t - r e t e s t method Harpin obtained a r e l i a b i l i t y c o - e f f i c i e n t of .75.^ Some of Harpin's conclusions based on h i s findings are of i n t e r e s t . 1 Ibid.,-p. 267. 2 I b i d . , p. 279-• 3W.S. Harpin, "The Appreciation of Prose," Educational Review, Vol. 19 (1966), pp. 13-22. ^I b i d . , p. 15.' 20 To h i s surprise, he found that the c o r r e l a t i o n between a b i l i t y to discriminate on the test and i n t e l l i g e n c e was much lower than e a r l i e r studies,such as Burton's study mentioned below, had led him to expect. 1 He did f i n d , however, a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the student's score and the amount of time claimed spent reading novels. Of the various reasons given by the students f o r t h e i r choices, " i n t e r e s t , " a rather vague term, was e a s i l y the most popular, followed by realism, imagination, s i m p l i c i t y , and c l a r i t y . 2 F i n a l l y , Harpin f e l t that g i r l s distinguished themselves from the boys by t h e i r greater a r t i c u l a t e n e s s , d e f i n i t e s u p e r i o r i t y i n discrim i n a t i o n , and a preference f o r emotional e f f e c t s . Boys leaned heavily on " i n t e r e s t . " 3 A l l three of the above tests ( C a r r o l l ' s , Williams', and Harpin's) have the l i m i t a t i o n that, because they employ prose passages never longer than a paragraph i n length, they concentrate almost e n t i r e l y on matters of s t y l e . One kind of prose test that does not suffer from t h i s weakness i s the type used by Burton i n h i s study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i t e r a r y appreciation and (1) verbal and non-verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e , (2) s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y , and (3) socio-economic s t a t u s . 4 The measures of l i t e r a r y appreciation used by Burton were C a r r o l l ' s Prose Appreciation Test, and two tests of Burton's own employing short s t o r i e s . Unfortunately, Burton did not describe h i s two tests i n great d e t a i l . The f i r s t , the Burton 1 ^ . L . Burton, "The Relationship of L i t e r a r y Appreciation to Certain Measurable Factors," Journal of Educational Psychology, V o l . 43 (1952), pp. 436-439, c i t e d i n Harpin, p. 16. 2Harpin, p. 18. 3 I b i d . , p. 18; ^Burton, pp. 436-439. S h o r t S t o r y C o m p a r i s o n T e s t , c o n s i s t e d o f t w e n t y m u l t i p l e c h o i c e i t e m s b a s e d o n t w o p u b l i s h e d s h o r t s t o r i e s , o n e g o o d a n d o n e b a d . T h e s e c o n d , t h e B u r t o n S h o r t S t o r y C h o i c e T e s t , c o n s i s t e d o f a n u n s p e c i f i e d n u m b e r o f i t e m s i n e a c h o f w h i c h t h e s t u d e n t w a s a s k e d t o c h o o s e a n e n d i n g f r o m t h r e e p o s s i b l e v e r s i o n s . 1 T e s t s o f t h i s t y p e w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y b e g o o d a t m e a s u r i n g a p p r e c i a t i o n o f s u c h a s p e c t s o f p r o s e n a r r a t i v e s a s p l o t c o n s t r u c t i o n , c h a r a c t e r , a n d t h e m e . L o b a n c l a i m e d t h a t s t u d e n t s ' r e s p o n s e s o n a p l o t c o m p l e t i o n t e s t ( n o t d e s c r i b e d ) c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y w i t h t h e k i n d o f s h o r t s t o r i e s t h a t t h e y t h e m s e l v e s w r o t e , t h u s p r e s e n t i n g a n a r g u m e n t f o r t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h i s k i n d o f t e s t . 2 F r o m h i s f i n d i n g s , B u r t o n c o n c l u d e d t h a t v e r b a l i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d s i l e n t r e a d i n g a b i l i t y w e r e i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s i n a p p r e c i a t i o n o f l i t e r a t u r e . H e a l s o c o n c l u d e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t a s t u d e n t - J s a p p r e c i a t i o n w a s f a i r l y s p e c i f i c , a n d c o u l d n o t b e j u d g e d r e l i a b l y b y a s i n g l e t e s t . 3 N o r m a t i v e m e a s u r e s e m p l o y i n g p o e t r y . O n e o f t h e f i r s t a t t e m p t s t o m e a s u r e s t u d e n t s ' a p p r e c i a t i o n o f p o e t r y w a s m a d e b y A b b o t t a n d T r a b u e . 1 * I n t h e i r t e s t a n u m b e r o f s h o r t p o e m s w e r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l f o r m t o g e t h e r w i t h t h r e e i n f e r i o r v e r s i o n s . T h e s u b j e c t s h a d t o s e l e c t t h e b e s t a n d w o r s t f r o m t h e f o u r v e r s i o n s . " N o a t t e m p t w a s m a d e t o i n c l u d e t h e c h o i c e o f t h e w o r s t v e r s i o n a s a f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e d e g r e e x I b i d . , p . 4 3 6 . 2 W . L o b a n , " E v a l u a t i n g G r o w t h i n t h e S t u d y o f L i t e r a t u r e , " E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , V o l . 3 7 ( 1 9 4 8 ) ; , p . 2 7 8 . 3 B u r t o n , p . 4 3 9 . 4 A . A b b o t t a n d M . R . T r a b u e , ! " " A M e a s u r e o f A b i l i t y t o J u d g e P o e t r y , " T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e R e c o r d , V o l . 2 2 ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p p . 1 0 1 - 1 2 6 . 22 of the subjects' success, however, because the test-constructors f e l t unable to determine conclusively which of the three i n f e r i o r versions i n each item was a c t u a l l y the worst. In each item the three a l t e r n a t i v e versions had been rendered i n f e r i o r i n the same way. The versions were: (1) a "sentimental" version with " s i l l y , gushy, affected or otherwise insincere f e e l i n g s , " (2>)Ja"prosaic" version, i n which the poet's imagery was reduced to "a more pedestrian and commonplace l e v e l , " and (3) a "metrical" version, which "rendered the movement e i t h e r e n t i r e l y awkward or less f i n e and subtle than the o r i g i n a l . " 1 The researchers confessed, however, that they had the greatest d i f f i c u l t y i n rendering the o r i g i n a l version i n f e r i o r i n one of the three ways, without introducing one or both of the other forms of i n f e r i o r i t y . The poems were val i d a t e d on experts, and f i n a l l y arranged i n two p a r a l l e l forms of the t e s t , each consisting of t h i r t e e n poems. The test was found to be wholly u n r e l i a b l e f o r elementary grades but had a r e l i a b i -l i t y c o - e f f i c i e n t of .44 f o r high-school students, .65 for college students, and .72 f o r graduate students i n E n g l i s h . 2 The v a l i d i t y of the t e s t f o r the more mature groups must, however, be rather suspect since several of the poems mentioned by the test-constructors as being i n the tests are well-known antihology pieces. The older students' choices could, therefore, have been based on recognition of the o r i g i n a l version rather than on a b i l i -ty to see i t s s u p e r i o r i t y over the a l t e r n a t i v e versions. Nevertheless, the examples given i n the appendix to the study indicate that the t e s t could be e f f e c t i v e f o r anyone previously unacquainted with the poems. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the test-constructors f e l t that the test ^ b i d . , p. 103. 2 I b i d . , p. 122. 23 would be us e f u l , at the teacher-training l e v e l , i n determining a teacher's competence to teach literature'. Williams, Winter and Woods, i n the study mentioned above, used passages of poetry as w e l l as passages of prose i n three of t h e i r t e s t s . 1 In the Ranking Method Test the student was asked to sort twenty short poetry extracts of varying merit into three categories - those l i k e d , those d i s l i k e d , and those neither l i k e d nor d i s l i k e d . In the Paired Comparison Test the student was presented with t h i r t y items, each con s i s t i n g of two al t e r n a t i v e forms of the same couplet, and asked to declare a preference f o r one of the forms. In many cases the two forms were the f i r s t d r a f t of a couplet by a well-known poet, and h i s l a t e r r e v i s i o n of i t . In each case the revised version was considered superior. F i n a l l y , i n the T r i p l e Comparison Test the student was presented with a serie s of items, each consisting of three poetry extracts, a l l on the same subject, which he was asked to rank-order. In each case the best piece was taken from The Oxford Book of Poetry, the next best from a poet "of intermediate type," and the worst from a popular magazine. The researchers found that the Ranking Method and Paired Comparison Tests were s a t i s f a c t o r y , but that the T r i p l e Comparison Test was not. 2 The Rigg Poetry Judgment Test i s the only published test of appre-c i a t i o n s t i l l commercially a v a i l a b l e . 3 I t consists of f o r t y items, each one containing a short passage of poetry, never longer than s i x l i n e s , by a Williams and others, pp. 265-283. 2 I b i d . , p. 279. 3M.G. Rigg, The Rigg Poetry Judgment Test.(Iowa C i t y : Bureau of Educational Research and Service, State Un i v e r s i t y of Iowa, 1942). poet "of established reputation" together with another version of the same l i n e s "purposely made i n f e r i o r i n some respect." 1 The Examiner's Manual points out that the general procedure used by Abbott and Trabue was followed, but that by reducing the number of i n f e r i o r versions from three to one, and by using shorter passages, the f o r t y items on the te s t could be answered i n about the. same time as the th i r t e e n on the Abbott-Trabue t e s t . The te s t was val i d a t e d on a group of "experts," consisting mainly of 43 college professors of English; at the high-school l e v e l the r e l i a b i l i -ty c o - e f f i c i e n t f o r the two forms of the test was .84.2 The t e s t does, however, have several shortcomings. One obvious defect of the t e s t , i n both versions, i s the "dated" nature of many of the passages. None i s more modern than early twentieth century, and many of them have not survived the passage of time very s u c c e s s f u l l y . Another serious defect i s that, i n addition to v a l i d aesthetic reasons f o r di s t i n g u i s h i n g the i n f e r i o r from the o r i g i n a l version, such as the weakening or removal of an image or the s p o i l i n g of the rhythm, there are also spurious con-s i d e r a t i o n s . For example, the i n f e r i o r t v e r s i o n s c o n s i s t e n t l y use more modern language than the o r i g i n a l versions, which often contain poetic archaisms l i k e "hath," "bark" (for "boat"!i)> or "shoon." There i s no i n t r i n -s i c merit i n archaisms, and the test would have been greatly improved i f they were equally p l e n t i f u l i n both versions. 1 I b i d . , p. 3. 2 I b i d . , p. 10. Eppel devised a test i n which the student was presented with a number of poetic extracts, each with a l i n e or l i n e s missing. 1 He was asked to se l e c t , the missing l i n e from among two counterfeit versions of the same l i n e . The test-constructors were c a r e f u l i n t h e i r s e l e c t i o n of poems, and l i s t e d the following "important considerations" i n t h e i r choice. The poems had to: (1) display high l i t e r a r y merit, (2) cover a wide v a r i e t y of s t y l e s and periods, and (3) as f a r as possibl e , be unknown to the students. 2 As a further refinement, they chose th e i r poems from "two cl e a r l y - d e f i n e d types of poetry - ' d i r e c t ' and 'oblique', and from poems having two c l e a r l y defined kinds of subject - 'nature' and 'human r e l a t i o n s h i p s ' . " 3 In the f i n a l version of the test ten oblique and ten d i r e c t poems were used; and of these poems four c l e a r l y dealt with nature andfour with human r e l a -tionships. The tes t was val i d a t e d on experienced English teachers; the subjects were secondary students and adults. As i n the Abbott-Trabue study, the researchers found "... a steady and highly s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n t o t a l score with increasing age, suggesting that poetic d i s c r i m i n a t i o n develops co n s i s t e n t l y throughout and beyond adolescence." 1 1 They also found that females generally scored higher than males, and that, at a l l age l e v e l s , subjects generally did better on the oblique than on the d i r e c t items. 5 Perhaps the most sophisticated and complex test of appreciation of poetry was devised by B r i t t o n . 6 His purpose was to test the hypothesis ^.M. Eppel, "A new tes t of poetry d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , " B r i t i s h Journal of  Educational Psychology, Vol. 20 (1950) pp. 111-116. . 2 I b i d . , p. 112. i2lbid.?,pUlll. I b k b i d y , pr-115. 5 I b i d . 6J.N. B r i t t o n , "Evidence of Improvement i n Poetic Judgment," B r i t i s h Journal of Psychology, Vol. 45 (1954), pp. 196-208. 26 that changes of opinion are generally f o r the better i n matters of taste. He presented h i s subjects with f i f t e e n short complete poems divided i n t o genuine poems "that had something to communicate" and spurious i m i t a t i o n s , w ritten by B r i t t o n himself, "that had nothing to communicate." As a further refinement to the t e s t , he selected h i s poems to represent the four poles of poetic preference postulated by Eysenck: abandoned-restrained and simple-complex. 1 The f i f t e e n poems were divided into eight true poems, two poems representing each of Eysenck's four poles, and seven f a l s e poems. The subjects were asked to arrange the poems i n order of preference, and, where possible, give a reason for t h e i r preference. The subjects, 120 adults and students, were given the test twice, with an i n t e r v a l of s i x months between the administrations. B r i t t o n did not examine the t e s t f o r r e l i a b i l i t y . In agreement with B r i t t o n ' s hypothesis there was a marked increase i n the preference f o r the true poems shown by a l l the subjects on the second t e s t . B r i t t o n concluded from t h i s r e s u l t that "good poetry should be read and returned t o . " 2 Lkn analysis of the subjects' responses, according to: (1) age, (2) f a c u l t y ( a r t s - s c i e n c e ) , and (3) sex, produced the following fi n d i n g s . Only the "expert" group showed an o v e r a l l pre-ference for the true poems. G i r l s , rather s u r p r i s i n g l y , d i f f e r e d l i t t l e from boys i n t h e i r r e s u l t s , although B r i t t o n states that boys had a s i g n i f i c a n t preference f o r the f a l s e poems, and male science students had a highly s i g n i f i c a n t preference. There was also a clear i n d i c a t i o n of a gradual s h i f t i n preference with increasing age from simple,to complex poems.3 XH.J; Eysenck, "Some Factors i n the Appreciation of Poetry, and t h e i r Relation to Temperamental Q u a l i t i e s , " Character and Personality, V o l . 9 (1940-41), pp. 164-165, c i t e d i n B r i t t o n , p. 197. 2 B r i t t o n , p. 205. 3 I b i d . , p. 200. 27 Studies employing d e s c r i p t i v e measures In addition to the normative measures described above, four studies which attempted only to analyze or describe the factors i n f l u e n c i n g response to a l i t e r a r y work are worthy of mention. These studies did not provide a score whereby the i n d i v i d u a l student's performance could be measured; rather the responses of many students were examined i n order to determine the various possible types of response and the frequency with which they could be expected to occur. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , therefore, the favourite t o o l of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r kind of research has been content analysis. Three of the four studies, i n f a c t , used t h i s method. Two of the studies are concerned with response to poetry, one with response to prose f i c t i o n , and one with response to both poetry and prose. The two studies analyzing response to poetry w i l l be discussed f i r s t . D escriptive measures employing poetry. One of the e a r l i e s t , and probably b"est"4known studies of sub-scholarly response to l i t e r a t u r e was made by Richards. 1 He would present to h i s undergraduate students a poem without a t i t l e or any other clue regarding i t s authorship, and ask them to write down over a period of several days t h e i r honest response to i t . He continued t h i s p r a c t i c e f or several years, and used, i n a l l , t h i r t e e n poems and two separate groups of students. The l a t t e r ' s responses to the poems formed the basis for h i s book. One of Richards' purposes was to reveal what he considered was the lamentable lack of l i t e r a r y appreciation displayed by the majority of even apparently well-educated people, i n t h i s 1I.A. Richards, P r a c t i c a l C r i t i c i s m ^ New York-: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1929). 28 case B r i t i s h u n i v e r s i t y students. Based on.his analysis of h i s students' responses, Richards l i s t e d the following general conclusions: (1) h i s subjects suffered frequently from immaturity and lack of reading, (2) women were more discriminating than men and c e r t a i n l y more f a m i l i a r with poetry, and (3) even the best readers were i n c l i n e d to be very v a r i a b l e i n the q u a l i t y of t h e i r responses. 1 Gunn, i n a study of the factors involved i n students' appreciation of poetry, used a much more structured technique than Richards. 2 Gunn's study i s the only one of the d e s c r i p t i v e studies not to employ content analysis. He f i r s t drew up a l i s t of nine q u a l i t i e s which he thought might influence appreciation of poetry. These q u a l i t i e s were: (1) l i k i n g - d i s l i k i n g , (2) comprehension, (3) rhythm, (4) mental imagery, (5) rhyme, (6) emotional appeal, (7) idea or thought contained, (8) word music, (9) s u i t a b i l i t y of expression. Gunn then presented to h i s subjects, a l l boys aged 14-17, a series of nineteen short poems of varying s t y l e s . The poems, which were presented over a period of three days, were unknown to the students and u n i d e n t i f i e d . The subjects were asked to rate each of the poems for each of the nine q u a l i t i e s on a f i v e - p o i n t scale. There seems to be a c e r t a i n confusion of terms i n Gunn's l i s t of " q u a l i t i e s , " since the f i r s t two, l i k i n g and comprehension, are a c t u a l l y the two responses, a f f e c t i v e and cognitive, that students could make to poetry, while the other seven are q u a l i t i e s possibly present i n a poem. l i b i d . , pp. 310-317. 2D.G. Gunn, "Factors i n the Appreciation of Poetry," B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology, V o l . 21 (1951), pp. 96-104. 29 Nevertheless, based on h i s fi n d i n g s , Gunn concluded that there was a general factor of appreciation i n which the heaviest loadings were l i k i n g , emotional e f f e c t , and appeal of the subject. There was also a complicated b i p o l a r factor i n which rhyme, word music, and rhythm were contrasted with emotional e f f e c t , appeal of the subject, comprehension, and mental imagery. 1 Descriptive measures employing prose. Perhaps the most thorough and c o n t r o l l e d analysis of student response to l i t e r a t u r e was c a r r i e d out by Squire i n h i s study of the responses made by adolescents to four short s t o r i e s . 2 His subjects were 27 boys and 25 g i r l s , ranging i n age from j u s t under f i f t e e n to j u s t over sixteen. Their mean reading a b i l i t y was almost exactly the n a t i o n a l average, and t h e i r socio-economic status was weighted i n favour of the higher categories. Each student was interviewed separately, and h i s o r a l comments on each of the four short s t o r i e s were recorded on tape. In order to record as accurately as possible h i s subjects' reactions during the reading process, Squire divided each story into s i x d i v i s i o n s and encouraged the students to make any comments they wished at the end of reading each section. This technique had the advantage of allowing h i s subjects to be more spontaneous than they would have been i f they^ had been compelled to write down t h e i r comments or. withhold them u n t i l they had f i n i s h e d reading the story. Squire used two analysts to check-code the student t r a n s c r i p t s , and, a f t e r p r a c t i c e , obtained a co-e f f i c i e n t of .83 between them. 1Ibid.,-pp. 101-103. 2J.R. Squire, "The Responses of Adolescents while Reading Four Short  Stories;(Champaign, I l l i n o i s ; National Council of Teachers of English, 1964). 30 Af t e r analysis of the students' t r a n s c r i p t s Squire i d e n t i f i e d the following seven main categories of response: (1) l i t e r a r y judgments, (2) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l responses, (3) n a r r a t i o n a l reactions, (4) a s s o c i a t i o n a l responses, (5) self-involvement, (6) p r e s c r i p t i v e judgments, and (7) m i s c e l -laneous. One of the most important of Squire's findings was a high p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the categories of l i t e r a r y judgments and s e l f - i n v o l v e -ment. His conclusion was that: ...readers who become strongly involved emotionally i n a story tend, ei t h e r while reading or more frequently at the end of reading a s e l e c t i o n to analyze the elements i n a story which give r i s e to t h e i r involvement. Involved readers are more l i k e l y to make statements which might be coded as l i t e r a r y judgments than are readers who are not so involved. 1 Since making a l i t e r a r y judgment, as a form of evaluation, demonstrates a high l e v e l of appreciation, we have here further s u b s t a n t i a l evidence of the importance of the a f f e c t i v e response as a component of appreciation. If Squire's study of student response to l i t e r a t u r e was amongst the most c o n t r o l l e d , Purves' study was c e r t a i n l y on the largest s c a l e . 2 His material consisted of about three hundred essays on l i t e r a r y topics written by students, aged 13-17, i n four countries: the United States, Great B r i t a i n , Belgium, and Germany. His study thus contains an i n t e r e s t i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l dimension. Purves wished to develop and r e f i n e the method of categorizing response to l i t e r a t u r e employed i n the Squire study. Each essay was scored by three d i f f e r e n t markers, and when two agreed on a statement i t was coded. Two of the three markers agreed on almost 90% of the statements, but a l l three agreed on only 35-40%. 3 I b i d . , p. 22. 2A.C. Purves, The Elements of Writing about a L i t e r a r y Work: a Study  of Response to L i t e r a t u r e / Champaign, I l l i n o i s ; , National Council of Teachers of English, 1968). 3 I b i d . , p. 47. 31 Purves divided response to l i t e r a t u r e into the same four basic categories that were presented i n Chapter I:. (1) engagement-involvement, (2) perception, (3) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and (4) evaluation. Within these four elements are contained, according to Purves, the elements of response, that i s , " a l l the p o s s i b i l i t i e s that l i e open to an essay writer each time he confronts a l i t e r a r y work." 1 Purves' team found 120 separate elements which they divided i n t o twenty-five sub-categories. They did not, however, attempt to group these elements into h i e r a r c h i e s or according to a si n g l e p r i n c i p l e , since one of the most important implications Purves f e l t that h i s study contained for teachers was that one type of response was not necess a r i l y better than another, and that the value of any response lay i n the way i n which i t was handled. For t h i s reason, Purves claimed that a teacher should not try to force one type of response upon a student, but rather ask him to develop and support h i s own primary response. Conclusion Although there has been l i t t l e attempt to measure a f f e c t i v e response to l i t e r a t u r e i n published t e s t s , there have been a number of attempts i n the research l i t e r a t u r e . The majority of these studies have a l l measured the same behaviour, evaluation, even though t h e i r methods of measuring i t may have d i f f e r e d . Those studies not concerned with measuring evaluation analyzed the types of response made by students when confronted with a l i t e r a r y work. 1 I b i d . , p: 2. 2 I b i d . , pp. 59-60. 32 As Cooper has pointed out, tests of appreciation l i k e the normative measures described i n t h i s chapter have suffered u n f a i r neglect i n schools. 1 Even though some of the tests examined here are undeniably dated i n the material used, the p r i n c i p l e s underlying them are v a l i d , and as a means of measuring growth i n appreciation, tests of t h i s type using more contemporary material could prove to be valuable aids i n the teaching of l i t e r a t u r e . Accordingly, one of the major purposes of t h i s study was the development and t e s t i n g of a new measure of appreciation, using the measures presented i n t h i s chapter as models. Such questions as whether the measure should employ poetry or prose, what sources should be used for the s e l e c t i o n s , what age l e v e l the measure should be designed for and so f o r t h w i l l be discussed i n d e t a i l i n Chapter I I I . The c o n t r o l l i n g p r i n c i p l e , however, w i l l be the same as that employed by the majority of the studies examined i n . t h i s chapter; the student's power of evaluation i n the form of the a b i l i t y to discriminate between competing selections of d i f f e r e n t l i t e r a r y merit w i l l provide the basis f o r t h i s measure of appreciation. Adherence to t h i s p r i n c i p l e determines that i t i s the student's primary, a f f e c t i v e response to l i t e r a t u r e , and not h i s secondary, cognitive response, which i s given the greater weight, thus,placing the emphasis f o r a v a l i d measure of appreciation exactly where i t should be. XC.R. Cooper, "Measuring appreciation of l i t e r a t u r e : a review of attempts," Research i n the Teaching of English, Vol. 5 (Spring 1971), p. 14. 33 CHAPTER III PROCEDURES Introduction Given (a) that there i s a place f o r tests of l i t e r a r y appreciation i n the schools, and (b) that s u i t a b l e models f o r such tests do e x i s t , e s p e c i a l l y i n the research l i t e r a t u r e , i t seems incumbent upon those concerned with the teaching of l i t e r a t u r e to see that good modern measures of appreciation are developed. As was mentioned i n the l a s t chapter, the development of such a measure was one of the major purposes of t h i s study. The measure that was developed followed the p r i n c i p l e underlying a l l the other normative measures of appreciation i n that i t measured the a b i l i t y to discriminate on the basis of l i t e r a r y merit between competing se l e c t i o n s . Important as t h i s s k i l l i s as an aspect of appreciation, however, i t i s a r e l a t i v e l y passive behaviour, and no d e t a i l e d study has yet been made of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i t e r a r y d i s crimination and the more active behaviour of crea t i v e performance i n l i t e r a t u r e . Teachers have generally assumed the existence of a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two behaviours without the evidence of a con t r o l l e d study on which to base such a view* Accordingly, i t was decided i n t h i s study to attempt to provide the evidence f o r eit h e r confirming or r e j e c t i n g t h i s assumption. I t was also decided, p a r t l y as a check on the v a l i d i t y of the measures employed, to compare both the students' l i t e r a r y d i s crimination and t h e i r 34 creative performance i n l i t e r a t u r e with t h e i r teachers' assessment of t h e i r l e v e l of appreciation and t h e i r s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y . Development of the Measures Before these r e l a t i o n s h i p s could be examined, however, s u i t a b l e means of measuring (a) l i t e r a r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , (b) creative performance i n l i t e r a t u r e , and (c) teachers' assessment of appreciation had to be developed since no s a t i s f a c t o r y measures were i n existence. The measures developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t h i s study are described i n d e t a i l l a t e r i n t h i s chapter, but the p r i n c i p l e s underlying them w i l l be presented now. One of the f i r s t questions to be answered with respect to the development of the measures was: what age l e v e l should they be aimed at? Since the only study which t r i e d out a test of l i t e r a r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n at the elementary l e v e l concluded that the test was worthless at that l e v e l , i t was decided that the secondary l e v e l was better suited as the age range at which to aim the measures. 1 Since the e f f e c t of increased age on performance i n the measures was also to be examined i n the study, i t was decided to make the items i n the tests appealing to several grades at the secondary l e v e l . The next question to be answered was: should the measures employ poetry or prose? As has already been mentioned, one of the main advant-ages of poetry over prose, and probably the main reason f o r i t s greater popularity i n the research studies, i s that i t s more compact nature allows a greater number of v a l i d items to be presented i n a short space of time. 1A. Abbott and M.R. Trabue, "A measure of a b i l i t y to judge poetry," Teachers College Record, V o l . 22 (1921), p. 122. 35 I t was therefore decided to use poetry as the medium for the measures of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and creative performance i n l i t e r a t u r e . Models f o r the poetry d i s c r i m i n a t i o n test were p l e n t i f u l i n the research l i t e r a t u r e . The two, however, that seemed to o f f e r the best opportunities f o r improvement were by Abbott and Trabue, and Rigg. 1 Both tests used the p r i n c i p l e of p a i r i n g a poem or,poetic extract with a s i m i l a r version (or versions) d e l i b e r a t e l y rendered i n f e r i o r . Abbott and Trabue's test consisted of thirteen items, i n each of which a complete short poem was presented together with three i n f e r i o r versions. Rigg's test consisted of f o r t y items, i n each of which a poetic extract of j u s t a few l i n e s was paired with an i n f e r i o r version of the same l i n e s . The advantage of the Abbott and Trabue test was that i t employed complete poems, while the advantage of the Rigg t e s t was that i t had j u s t two versions to compare i n each item. I t was therefore decided that the p r i n c i p l e f o r each item of the poetry d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t e s t to be developed f o r t h i s study would be the comparison of a short poem with an i n f e r i o r version of the same poem. An. One' disadvantage of both the Abbott and Trabue and the Rigg test was the "old-fashioned" nature of much of the poetry i n them, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r students i n high school today. I t was therefore decided that the poems selected f o r use i n the tes t should: (1) be taken from anthologies of poetry f o r secondary school students currently i n use, (2) be predominantly modern ( i . e . written t h i s century), and (3) not employ the kind of language that would prove a b a r r i e r to understanding for some students. The an.thologi.esatused were designed f o r students at ^Abbott and Trabue, pp.101-126; M.G. Rigg, The Rigg Poetry Judgment Test( I o w a - C i t y : ^ Bureau-'of-Educational Research "and-Services, State Univers of Iowa, 1942)"? 36 both the junior and senior high school level, and were: The Second Century  Anthologies of Verse: Book I and Reflections on a Gift of Watermelon Pickle... (junior secondary texts), and Poetry: An Anthology for High Schools and Poetry of Our Time (senior secondary texts). 1 Apart from considerations of length and general literary merit, the main criterion for selection of any poem used in the test was i t s appeal to students at either the junior or senior secondary level. Poems con-sidered suitable for use in the test were f i r s t presented to.students not involved in the study for their opinions, and only those that seemed to have a certain appeal at either the junior or senior level were used in the final.selection. Twelve poems were fi n a l l y chosen, and these were selec-ted on the basis that they.presented a f a i r l y wide range in terms of maturity of theme, subject-matter, mood and poetic style. Only one of the poems, Masefield's "Sea Fever," could perhaps have been considered a well-known school anthology piece, and in the actual administration of the test there was in fact no indication that any of the poems was familiar to any student, so prior knowledge of a particular poem can presumably be ruled out as a reason for any student preferring i t to the inferior version. -R. Charlesworth, ed., The Second Century Anthologies of Verse: Book I (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1969); S. Dunning and others, ed., Reflections on a Gift of Watermelon Pickle... arid other modern verse (Toronto: Gage Educational Publishing Ltd. for Scott, Foresman and Co., 1966); P. Dover, ed., Poetry: An Anthology for High Schools (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada Ltd., 1965); L. Dudek, ed., Poetry  of Our Time (Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada Ltd., 1966). 37.-. Furthermore, i n order to remove reading a b i l i t y as much as possible as a f a c t o r i n the t e s t , i t was decided: ( 1 ) to s e l e c t poems that did not present s i g n i f i c a n t problems of vocabulary, and to provide marginal glosses for such d i f f i c u l t words as did occur, and ( 2 ) to have both versions of each poem read to the students on tape while they read the poems s i l e n t l y themselves. Models for the tests of creative expression i n poetry were not as r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e as they had been for the poetry d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t e s t . Torrance's studies i n creative thinking, while being probably the most advanced i n t h i s area, are more concerned with the elementary than second-ary l e v e l , and focus more on performance i n prose as opposed to poetic expression. 1 In the absence, then, of s u i t a b l e models i t was decided to develop separate tests f or three of the frequently c i t e d s u b - s k i l l s of poetry: rhyme, rhythm, and imagery. A l l three of these q u a l i t i e s appeared i n Gunn's study as factors i n the appreciation of poetry, and the l a s t two, rhythm and imagery, were among the f i v e elements considered by Walter as most e s s e n t i a l i n a good poem.2 The other three elements mentioned by Walter were unity, choice of words, and a f f e c t i v e q u a l i t y . Since the tests were intended to measure creative performance i t was decided that a multiple choice format would be automatically unsuitable, ^ . E . Torrance, "Creative Thinking Through the Language A r t s , " Readings i n Human Learning, ed. L.D. and A. Crow (New York: David McKay Co., 1 9 6 4 ) , pp. 4 3 6 - 4 4 2 . 2D.G. Gunn, "Factors i n the Appreciation of Poetry," B r i t i s h Journal  of Educational Psychology, Vol. 2 1 ( 1 9 5 1 ) , pp. 9 6 - 1 0 4 ; N.W. Walter, Let Them Write Poetry (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1 9 6 2 ) , p. 1 4 1 . . i 38 as i t would be too r e s t r i c t i v e of student response. The items i n a l l three tests were, therefore, made open-ended. The assessment of each student's l e v e l of appreciation was to be made by means of a questionnaire given to h i s English teacher. A l l the items on the questionnaire referred to behaviours r e l a t e d to appreciation that could be observed by the teacher during regular classroom a c t i v i t y . Research Hypotheses The main questions which t h i s study was designed to answer are the following: 1. To what extent i s disc r i m i n a t i o n i n poetry related to creative perform-ance i n poetry? 2. Do disc r i m i n a t i o n i n poetry and creative performance i n poetry increase with age at the secondary level? 3. Are g i r l s better than boys i n disc r i m i n a t i o n i n poetry and creative performance i n poetry? 4. To what extent are disc r i m i n a t i o n i n poetry and creative performance i n poetry r e l a t e d to s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y ? 5. What i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a teacher's assessment of a student's l e v e l of appreciation of l i t e r a t u r e and (a) the student's d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n poetry, and (b) the student's creative performance i n poetry? The general hypotheses f o r the study were: 1. There i s a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between discrimination i n poetry and creative performance i n poetry. 2. There i s a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y and (a) di s c r i m i n a t i o n i n poetry, and (b) creative performance i n poetry 3. Each of the above s k i l l s increases with age at the secondary l e v e l 4. G i r l s perform better than boys i n each of the above s k i l l s 39. The research evidence f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between discrimination i n poetry and creative performance i n aspects of poetry i s not strong. Loban reported a small study which found that students' responses on a p l o t completion t e s t (multiple choice) had a high c o r r e l a -t i o n with the kind of short s t o r i e s w ritten by the students themselves, suggesting that there was a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between dis c r i m i n a t i o n and creative expresssion. 1 The study was not reported i n d e t a i l , however, and i t s findings are not n e c e s s a r i l y applicable to d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and creative expression i n poetry. Nevertheless, for the purpose of t h i s p r i m a r i l y exploratory study one hypothesis was that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between dis c r i m i n a t i o n i n poetry and creative perform-ance i n various aspects of poetry. Two hypotheses f o r which stronger evidence does e x i s t , however, are: (1) that d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n l i t e r a t u r e increases with age, and (2) that females show greater discrimination i n l i t e r a t u r e than males. A l l of the research studies which included subjects of d i f f e r e n t ages found that performance on the various measures of discrimination improved with age. 2 The studies were not, however, unanimous i n t h e i r conclusions. Harpin, for example, reported that "success on [his prose appreciation] test i s l i k e l y to increase with age and experience but the tendency i s not a consistent one;" 3 Eppel, on the other hand, using subjects very s i m i l a r 1W. Loban, "Evaluating Growth i n the Study of L i t e r a t u r e , " English  Journal, Vol. 37 (June 1948) p. 278. 2A. Abbott and M.R. Trabue, "A Measure of A b i l i t y to Judge Poetry," Teacher's College Record, V o l . 22 (1921) p. 121; J.N. B r i t t o n , "Evidence of Improvement i n Poetic Judgment," B r i t i s h Journal of Psychology, Vol. 45 (1954), p. 200; E.M. Eppel, "A new test of poetry d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , " B r i t i s h  Journal of Educational Psychology, V o l . 20 (1950)p. 115; W.S. Harpin, "The Appreciation of Prose," Educational Review, V o l . 19 (1966), p. 16; E.D. Williams and others, "Tests of l i t e r a r y appreciation,'"'British Journal of  Educational Psychology, Vol. 8 (1938) p. 272. 3Harpin, p. 16. .. • 4 0 -i n a g e r a n g e t o H a r p i n ' s , c o n c l u d e d t h a t " p o e t i c d i s c r i m i n a t i o n d e v e l o p s c o n s i s t e n t l y t h r o u g h o u t a n d b e y o n d a d o l e s c e n c e . " 1 D e s p i t e t h i s s l i g h t d i s a g r e e m e n t , t h e c l e a r m a j o r i t y o f t h e s t u d i e s , a n d c e r t a i n l y a l l o f t h o s e e m p l o y i n g p o e t r y , f o u n d t h a t i m p r o v e m e n t i n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i t h i n c r e a s e d a g e w a s d e f i n i t e l y t o b e e x p e c t e d . A n o t h e r h y p o t h e s i s f o r t h i s s t u d y w a s , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t b o t h d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n p o e t r y a n d c r e a t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e i n p o e t r y i n c r e a s e w i t h a g e . O n t h e q u e s t i o n o f d i f f e r e n c e i n p e r f o r m a n c e b e t w e e n t h e s e x e s t h e s t u d i e s w e r e n o t u n a n i m o u s . O f t h e r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s w h i c h c o m m e n t e d o n t h i s d i f f e r e n c e , E p p e l ' s a n d H a r p i n ' s b o t h f o u n d t h a t f e m a l e s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y s u p e r i o r i n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t o m a l e s . 2 R i c h a r d s ' s t u d y w a s l e s s c o n t r o l l e d , b u t h e t o o f e l t t h a t " w o m e n w e r e m o r e d i s c e r n i n g t h a n m e n , a n d c e r t a i n l y m o r e f a m i l i a r w i t h p o e t r y . " 3 ; B r i t t o n , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , f o u n d n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n l i t e r a r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s e x e s i n h i s s t u d y . 4 . S i m i l a r _ y T ; i : S q u i r e : - f - o u n d e l i t t 3 i e ^ d i f f e r e n c e - b e t w e e n t h e s e x e s i n t h e i r t y p e s o f r e s p o n s e t o t h e s h o r t s t o r i e s u s e d i n h i s s t u d y . 5 A l t h o u g h t h e s t u d i e s a r e a p p a r e n t l y d i v i d e d o n t h i s i s s u e , s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i s a v a i l a b l e t o s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t g i r l s p e r f o r m s i g n i f i c a n t l y / E p p e l , p . 1 1 5 . 2 E p p e l , p . 1 1 5 ; H a r p i n , p . 1 6 . 3 I . A . R i c h a r d s , P r a c t i c a l C r i t i c i s m . . ( N e w Y o r k : , H a r c o u r t , B r a c e a n d W o r l d , 1 9 2 9 , ) , p . 3 1 2 . ^ B r i t t o n , p . 2 0 0 . 5 J . R . S q u i r e , T h e R e s p o n s e s o f A d o l e s c e n t s w h i l e R e a d i n g F o u r S h o r t  S t o r i e s C h a m p a i g n , 1 1 1 . : , N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h , 1 9 6 4 ) , p . 2 1 . 41 better than boys i n discrimination i n poetry. An extension of t h i s hypothesis for t h i s study was that a s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e would be found i n creative performance i n poetry. The main support for the argument that reading a b i l i t y i s an important f a c t o r i n appreciation comes from a study by Burton i n which he found a high c o r r e l a t i o n between h i s measures of appreciation and s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y . 1 Burton's f i n d i n g i s somewhat supported by Harpin's f i n d i n g of a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between performance on h i s prose appreciation test and the amount of time claimed to be spent i n novel-reading. 2 Although ned'ther of these studies used measures of appre-c i a t i o n involving poetry, the hypothesis for t h i s study was that both discrimination i n poetry and creative performance i n poetry have a s i g n i -f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y . As mentioned e a r l i e r , however, extra precautions were taken i n t h i s study to make s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y less of a f a c t o r i n the measures used. These precautions were most elaborate i n the poetry d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t e s t , where the l e v e l of language used was d e f i n i t e l y higher than i n the tests of creative per-formance i n poetry. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the hypotheses for the study were as follows: H^: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry and the a b i l i t y to perform c r e a t i v e l y i n rhyme, rhythm and imagery (p > .5) •^D.L. Burton, "The Relationship of L i t e r a r y Appreciation to Certain Measurable Factors," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 43 (1952), p. 438. 2Harpin, p. 16. 42 H^ ,: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between each of the above s k i l l s and s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y (p > .5) H^: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between a student's performance i n each of the above s k i l l s and h i s (or her) teacher's assessment of h i s (or her)'.'level of appreciation (p > .5) H^: Performance i n each of the above s k i l l s improves s i g n i f i c a n t l y with age at the secondary l e v e l (a = .01) H,.: G i r l s perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than boys i n each of the above s k i l l s (a = .01) Population and Samples The subjects selected f o r the research were grade eight and grade ten students i n a large metropolitan secondary school i n an average socio-economic section of the c i t y . Five English classes were involved, three grade eight and two grade ten. A l l f i v e classes were unstreamed, and the students had been unsystematically assigned to t h e i r respective classes. The t o t a l number of students involved i n the study was 112. Since, however, no attempt was made to allow students to take a test they had missed on any day, the number of students f o r whom complete data i s a v a i l -able i s only 95. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the students by grade and sex f o r both p a r t i a l data and complete data i s given i n table 1. In both cases,, the grade eights outnumber the grade tens, and g i r l s outnumber boys. The least represented group, therefore, were the grade ten boys. The main reason for the low number of grade ten students, p a r t i c u l a r l y boys, was a rather high drop-out rate which meant that the actual number of students i n class f o r the tests was not as large as had been indicated by the class l i s t s . 43 TABLE 1 STUDENTS INVOLVED IN THE STUDY Complete Data S E X M n= 95 GRADE 8 10 26 12 34 23 P a r t i a l Data n=112 GRADE 8 10 M 30 18 38 26 The r e s u l t s of the study should c e r t a i n l y be capable of genera l i z a t i o n to the t o t a l populations of the two grades involved i n the school. Unfortunately, since the school board does not keep standardized data f o r i t s secondary school students i n the area of reading or rela t e d s k i l l s , g e neralization to the t o t a l populations of the two grades i n the c i t y i s not possi b l e . The school board does, however, administer annually a standardized reading test to a l l i t s grade s i x students, and a random sample of one hundred grade ten students i n the school involved i n the study revealed that t h e i r mean grade s i x reading score had been very close to the c i t y norms. 1 I t i s , therefore, l i k e l y that the performance of the students involved i n t h i s study i s t y p i c a l of the performance of many students i n the school d i s t r i c t . Measures Employed In a l l , s i x measures of student achievement were used. These measures were: four tests developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the study, one s i m i l a r l y i n f o r m a t i o n supplied by the research department of the school board. 4 4 d e v e l o p e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e g i v e n t o t h e E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s o f t h e s t u d e n t s i n v o l v e d , a n d o n e s t a n d a r d i z e d s i l e n t r e a d i n g t e s t . T h e f o u r t e s t s w e r e : t h e P o e m C o m p a r i s o n T e s t , t h e R h y m e T e s t , t h e R h y t h m T e s t a n d t h e I m a g e r y T e s t . T h e s t a n d a r d i z e d r e a d i n g t e s t w a s t h e G a t e s - M c G i n i t i e  R e a d i n g T e s t , S u r v e y E , ' F o r m 2 M . T h e t e s t i n g t o o k p l a c e i n t h e l a s t t w o w e e k s o f A p r i l , 1 9 7 5 . I n t h e f i r s t w e e k t h e R h y m e T e s t , t h e P o e m C o m p a r i s o n T e s t , t h e R h y t h m T e s t a n d t h e I m a g e r y T e s t w e r e g i v e n i n t h a t o r d e r , o n e t e s t p e r d a y f r o m M o n d a y t o T h u r s d a y . T h e r e a d i n g t e s t w a s g i v e n o n t h e f o l l o w i n g M o n d a y a n d T u e s d a y . B e c a u s e o f t i m e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t h e f i r s t t w o s e c t i o n s o f t h e t e s t , ( 1 ) S p e e d a n d A c c u r a c y a n d ( 2 ) V o c a b u l a r y , w e r e g i v e n o n t h e f i r s t d a y , a n d t h e t h i r d s e c t i o n , C o m p r e h e n s i o n , w a s g i v e n o n t h e s e c o n d . T h e Teacher Q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s g i v e n t o t h e t e a c h e r s c o n c e r n e d a f t e r t h e s t u d e n t s h a d b e e n d i s m i s s e d f o r t h e y e a r . T h e f o u r t e s t s a n d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e v e l o p e d s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t h e s t u d y w i l l n o w b e d e s c r i b e d i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l . R h y m e T e s t T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e t e s t w a s t o s e e h o w m a n y w o r d s e a c h s t u d e n t c o u l d t h i n k o f a n d w r i t e d o w n t o r h y m e w i t h a s i m p l e m o n o s y l l a b i c w o r d t h a t h e h a d j u s t h e a r d . T h e e x a c t f o r m o f t h e t e s t i s g i v e n i n A p p e n d i x B . I n a l l , f i f t e e n r h y m i n g w o r d s w e r e u s e d i n t h e t e s t . T h e i t e m s w e r e s e l e c t e d o n t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e y r e p r e s e n t e d b e t w e e n t h e m a v a r i e t y o f v o w e l a n d c o n s o n a n t c o m b i n a t i o n s , a n d t h a t e a c h o n e c o u l d b e r h y m e d w i t h a l a r g e n u m b e r o f o t h e r w o r d s . T h e f i f t e e n w o r d s u s e d i n t h e t e s t w e r e : ( 1 ) s t o n e ( 2 ) g r o w ( 3 ) r u d e ( 4 ) l u m p ( 5 ) g r e e n ( 6 ) o l d ( 7 ) c h e e r ( 8 ) e i g h t 45 ( 9 ) f a c e ( 1 0 ) m o r e ( 1 1 ) d e w ( 1 2 ) m u d ( 1 3 ) s p i r e ( 1 4 ) c l o c k ( 1 5 ) r i c h . A f t e r h e a r i n g e a c h w o r d c l e a r l y e n u n c i a t e d a n d r e p e a t e d , t h e s t u d e n t s w e r e a l l o w e d s i x t y s e c o n d s t o w r i t e d o w n a s m a n y w o r d s a s t h e y c o u l d t h a t , i n t h e i r o p i n i o n , r h y m e d w i t h i t . T h e y w e r e n o t s h o w n t h e w r i t t e n f o r m o f t h e w o r d i n c a s e t h e y m i g h t b e t e m p t e d t o r e s t r i c t t h e i r r e s p o n s e s t o w o r d s w i t h s i m i l a r s p e l l i n g . T h e r e w a s a s h o r t b r e a k o f a b o u t a q u a r t e r o f a m i n u t e b e t w e e n e a c h w o r d , a n d a s l i g h t l y l o n g e r b r e a k a f t e r t h e e i g h t h w o r d . T h e s t u d e n t s w e r e t o l d n o t t o w o r r y a b o u t s p e l l i n g s i n c e t h e p u r p o s e w a s f o r t h e m t o g e t d o w n a s m a n y w o r d s a s t h e y c o u l d i n t h e t i m a l l o w e d . T h e y w e r e a l s o t o l d n o t t o a d d a n y w o r d s t h a t t h e y m i g h t t h i n k o f a f t e r t h e a l l o t t e d t i m e . B e f o r e t h e t e s t , e a c h c l a s s w a s g i v e n a b r i e f p r e p a r a t o r y s e s s i o n t o e n s u r e t h a t a l l t h e s t u d e n t s u n d e r s t o o d t h e p r o c e d u r e . P o e m C o m p a r i s o n T e s t T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s t e s t w a s t o m e a s u r e t h e s t u d e n t s ' a b i l i t y t o d i s c r i m i n a t e o n t h e b a s i s o f v a l u e b e t w e e n t w o v e r s i o n s o f t h e s a m e p o e m . T h e e x a c t f o r m o f t h e t e s t a n d t h e k e y a r e g i v e n i n A p p e n d i x B . T h e t e s t c o n s i s t e d o f t w e l v e i t e m s . I n e a c h c a s e , t h e t w o v e r s i o n s w e r e a s h o r t p o e m b y a r e c o g n i z e d p o e t a n d a n o t h e r v e r s i o n o f t h a t p o e m , d e l i b e r a t e l y m a d e i n f e r i o r i n s o m e w a y b y t h e r e s e a r c h e r . T h e i n f e r i o r i t y o f t h e s e c o n d v e r s i o n w a s c a u s e d b y e i t h e r a w e a k e n i n g o f t h e o r i g i n a l p o e m ' s d i c t i o n , r h y t h m , i m a g e r y o r , t h e m e , o r b y a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e s e f a u l t s . T h e t w e l v e p o e m s w e r e s e l e c t e d t o r e p r e s e n t a w i d e r a n g e o f s t y l e s , m o o d s a n d t h e m e s . A l l t h e p o e m s w e r e w r i t t e n t h i s c e n t u r y s o t h a t t h e p r o b l e m o f a s t u d e n t b e i n g u n f a m i l i a r w i t h a n a r c h a i c s t y l e o r d i c t i o n d i d n o t a r i s e . 46 Care was also taken to s e l e c t poems that did not pose undue problems of vocabulary. In the few cases where an unusual or d i f f i c u l t word did occur a b r i e f marginal explanation was provided, and these explanations appeared equally for words i n both the o r i g i n a l and i n f e r i o r versions so that they would not provide students with an unintentional clue regarding the s u p e r i o r i t y of ei t h e r version. Here i s the f i r s t item on the t e s t as an example: Lost Version A: Lonely and a f r a i d A l l night long on the lake Where the fog and the mist l i e heavy, The whistle of a boat Keeps on c a l l i n g through the dark Like a l i t t l e c h i l d That has l o s t i t s mother, And, not knowing what to do Cries out for help. Good Version B: Desolate and alone A l l night long on the lake Where fog t r a i l s and mist creeps The whistle of a boat C a l l s and c r i e s unendingly, Like some l o s t c h i l d In tears and trouble,' Hunting the harbour's breast And the harbour's eyes. F a i r Poor Good F a i r Poor In the t e s t , the two versions of the poem appeared on the same page. The order of t h e i r presentation was randomly d i s t r i b u t e d among the twelve poems, with the o r i g i n a l version presented f i r s t as many times as the i n f e r i o r version.' Instead of being t o l d that one v e r s i o n was the o r i g i n a l and the other an i n f e r i o r i m i t a t i o n , the students were t o l d i n the 47 introduction to the test that both versions were simply d i f f e r e n t versions of the same poem. They were also not asked d i r e c t l y to express a preference for one or the other version, but instead asked to rate each version separately on a three-point scale: good, f a i r or poor. In order to eliminate s t i l l further s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y as a fa c t o r i n the students' performance, both versions of the poem were read to them on tape as they read along s i l e n t l y themselves. A f t e r both versions of the poem had been read to them, the students were asked to re-read them and then mark t h e i r assessment of each version i n the appropriate box. The poems were read by two accomplished adult readers, one male and one female. Each reader read both versions of the same poem, and t h e i r readings were alternated throughout the twelve poems. Rhythm Test The purpose of t h i s test was to measure the students' a b i l i t y to recognize a rhythmic pattern i n verse and recreate i t . The exact form of the t e s t i s given i n Appendix B. The test consisted of f i f t e e n poetic extracts, from two to f i v e l i n e s i n length, a l l with a d e f i n i t e rhythm. In each item e i t h e r a whole l i n e or the l a s t p ortion of a l i n e had been omitted, and the students were asked to supply or complete the l i n e i n such a way that the rhythm of the piece was,not spoiled. Here i s the f i r s t item on the test as an example: By day the bat i s cousin to the mouse. He l i k e s In the introduction to the test the students were given an example of the kind of item they would be presented with and shown various possible responses. I t was also stressed to them that getting the rhythm of the . 48 l i n e r i g h t should be t h e i r main concern, and that whether the l i n e rhymed or not and even whether i t made complete sense or not should be of second-ary importance. Af t e r the introduction to the t e s t , the students were allowed to answer the items at t h e i r own speed. Ample time was allowed for completion of the t e s t , and the few students who did not answer a l l the items con-fessed that t h e i r problem was lack of i n s p i r a t i o n rather than lack of time. Imagery Test The purpose of t h i s test was to measure the students' a b i l i t y to create images. The test was divided into three sections, each one designed to test a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t aspect of t h i s s k i l l . The exact form of the test i s given i n Appendix B. The f i r s t section was designed to measure the students' a b i l i t y to make an imaginative comparison between two unlike objects and defend the comparison with a reason. There were f i v e items i n the section. In each item the students had to provide a comparison for a given object and explain the nature of the s i m i l a r i t y . Here i s the f i r s t item as an example: A s a i l b o a t i s l i k e because Aft e r a b r i e f introduction to the section, the students worked at t h e i r own speed. The second section of the t e s t was not started u n t i l everyone had had as much time as he needed to f i n i s h . The second section was designed to measure the students' a b i l i t y to provide a number of comparisons f o r a given object. Five objects were used i n the section. These objects were: an iceberg, drumbeats, f a l l i n g 49 leaves, a s n a i l - s h e l l and a high bridge. I t was expected that most of these items would stimulate p r i m a r i l y v i s u a l comparisons, but the second item, "drumbeats," was,included to provide an auditory dimension to the measure. Af t e r a b r i e f introduction to the section, the students were asked to l i s t as many d i f f e r e n t things that each object reminded them of as they could. They were allowed to work at t h e i r own speed, and weregiven as much time as they f e l t they needed. A f t e r ten minutes a l l the.students were e i t h e r f i n i s h e d or f e l t that more time would be of no help to them. A number of students l e f t one or more items blank. The t h i r d section was designed to measure the students' a b i l i t y to complete a d e s c r i p t i v e sentence with an imaginative comparison i n the form of e i t h e r a metaphor or a s i m i l e . A f t e r a b r i e f introduction point-ing out the e s s e n t i a l difference between a metaphor and a s i m i l e the students were given some pr a c t i c e on a sample item. They were t o l d that i t did not matter whether they used a metaphor or a s i m i l e , but that they should try to make each comparison as i n t e r e s t i n g or as s t r i k i n g as•they could. As i n the previous two sections the students were allowed to work at t h e i r own speed, and were given as much time as they needed to f i n i s h a l l f i v e items. Nearly a l l the students completed t h i s section. Very few of them, however, attempted to use metaphors i n completing t h e i r sentences. Here i s the f i r s t item as an example: The stormy sea was Teacher Questionnaire This questionnaire was designed to provide a subjective assessment on the part of each student's English teacher of h i s l e v e l of appreciation of l i t e r a t u r e , as displayed i n h i s regular classwork. The exact form 50 of the questionnaire i s given i n Appendix B. The teachers were not given the questionnaire u n t i l a f t e r the students had been dismissed f o r the year, and they had no advance knowledge that they would be given such a questionnaire. The teacher was asked to rate each student, using a four-point scale, on eight d i f f e r e n t behaviours which could help to i n d i c a t e h i s appreciation of l i t e r a t u r e . Some of the items referred s p e c i f i c a l l y to the student's o r a l work, some to h i s written work, and some could apply to both written and o r a l work. As an example of the items and the r a t i n g scale used, here i s the s i x t h item: How w e l l does he/she read prose, poetry or drama o r a l l y ? very w e l l quite well not very w e l l very poorly Response of the Students to the Tests In general, the response of the students to the tests was one of i n t e r e s t and cooperation. They were t o l d that they had been selected as part of a study of students' attitudes towards l i t e r a t u r e , and they were assured that t h e i r performance on the tests would have no e f f e c t on t h e i r teacher's assessment of t h e i r achievement i n English. The f a c t that each student was given a randomly assigned number with which to i d e n t i f y himself on h i s test papers helped to reassure them that the r e s u l t s of the tests would be both anonymous and c o n f i d e n t i a l . The students found the Rhythm and Imagery Tests d e f i n i t e l y the most d i f f i c u l t of the four tests developed for the study. This s i t u a t i o n was made apparent both by comments made by the students a f t e r the completion of the t e s t s , and by the f a c t that these were the only tests that some students f a i l e d to complete. The Rhyme and the Poem Comparison Tests 5 1 a p p a r e n t l y o f f e r e d n o p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t y . W h e n a s k e d a f t e r t h e c o m p l e -t i o n o f t h e P o e m C o m p a r i s o n T e s t w h e t h e r t h e y h a d f o u n d t h e t a p e d r e a d i n g s o f t h e p o e m s h e l p f u l , t h e s t u d e n t s ' u n a n i m o u s r e s p o n s e w a s , t h a t t h e y h a d . O n e r a t h e r s u r p r i s i n g f e a t u r e o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e P o e m C o m p a r i s o n T e s t w a s t h e s p e e d w i t h w h i c h m a n y o f t h e s t u d e n t s , e s p e c i a l -l y t h e g r a d e e i g h t s , m a d e u p t h e i r m i n d s o n t h e v e r s i o n s o f t h e p o e m s . E v e n t h o u g h t h e y h a d b e e n e n c o u r a g e d t o r e - r e a d t h e t w o v e r s i o n s a f t e r h e a r i n g t h e m r e a d t o t h e m o n t a p e b e f o r e m a k i n g t h e i r d e c i s i o n s a b o u t t h e m , f e w o f t h e y o u n g e r s t u d e n t s s e e m e d t o d o s o e x c e p t i n t h e m o s t c u r s o r y f a s h i o n . I n t h e l i g h t o f b o t h S q u i r e ' s a n d P u r v e s ' c o m m e n t s o n t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f i n v o l v e m e n t o r e n g a g e m e n t i n t h e l i t e r a r y w o r k a s a p r e c o n d i t i o n o f a p p r e c i a t i o n , t h i s b e h a v i o u r o n t h e p a r t o f m a n y o f t h e s t u d e n t s w o u l d s e e m t o i n d i c a t e a r e l a t i v e l y l o w l e v e l o f a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e p a s s a g e s i n t h e t e s t . 1 M a r k i n g o f t h e M e a s u r e s T h e f i v e m e a s u r e s d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e s t u d y p r e s e n t e d v a r y i n g a m o u n t s o f d i f f i c u l t y i n , t h e i r s c o r i n g , d e p e n d i n g m a i n l y o n t h e d e g r e e o f s u b j e c t i v i t y i n v o l v e d . T h e P o e m C o m p a r i s o n T e s t a n d t h e T e a c h e r Q u e s t i o n -n a i r e , b e c a u s e o f t h e i r o b j e c t i v e f o r m a t , p r e s e n t e d n o p r o b l e m s . T h e R h y m e T e s t p r e s e n t e d a f e w p r o b l e m s , b u t w a s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d e n o u g h t o •^J.R. S q u i r e , T h e R e s p o n s e s o f A d o l e s c e n t s w h i l e R e a d i n g F o u r S h o r t  S t o r i e s s ( C h a m p a i g n , I l l i n o i s : , N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h , 1 9 6 4 ) , p . 2 2 ; A . C . P u r v e s , " E v a l u a t i o n o f L e a r n i n g i n L i t e r a t u r e , " H a n d b o o k o n  F o r m a t i v e a n d S u m m a t i v e E v a l u a t i o n o f S t u d e n t L e a r n i n g , e d . B . S . B l o o m a n d o t h e r s , ( N e w Y o r k : , M c G r a w - H i l l I n c . , 1 9 7 1 ) , , p . 7 3 3 . 52 be scored by one person. The Rhythm Test and the f i r s t and t h i r d sections of the Imagery Test, however, were considered too subjective to be scored by one marker. Consequently, two markers, both English teachers un-f a m i l i a r with the students involved i n the study, were used i n these t e s t s . The d e s c r i p t i o n of the marking of the measures w i l l follow the same order as that used i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of the measures. Rhyme Test This test was scored on the basis of one point f o r every acceptable rhyming word provided by the student. A l l the students' papers were marked only by the researcher. R e l a t i v e l y few of the students' responses had to be rejected. The main reasons for r e j e c t i o n , i n approximate order of frequency, were: use of spontaneous coinages such as "mump" to rhyme with "lump," r e p e t i t i o n of a word already used, use of a non-rhyming word, and i l l e g i b i l i t y . The misspelling of a word, as was indicated to the students i n the i n s t r u c t i o n s , was not a cause f o r r e j e c t i o n , although a repeated homonym was counted as only one word unless there was a c l e a r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between the various s p e l l i n g s . A marked tendency towards phonetic s p e l l i n g s was, i n f a c t , noticeable among the students, perhaps a t t r i b u t a b l e to the nature of the t e s t . So f a r as the language l e v e l of the words used by the students was concerned, the marker was l e n i e n t , accepting any non-standard word that he was famil-iar with. A s i m i l a r l a t i t u d e was.granted with respect to variant pronunciations, although the marker f i n a l l y decided that "mirror" was not an acceptable rhyme for "cheer." Because of the general s p i r i t of tolerance with which the test was marked, the proportion of rejected responses was for most of the students very low. 53 Poem Comparison T e s t T h i s t e s t was marked out of a t o t a l of t w e n t y - f o u r , w i t h each of t h e t w e l v e i t e m s b e i n g marked on a t h r e e - p o i n t s c a l e . I f t h e s t u d e n t i n d i c a t e d t h a t he th o u g h t t h e o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n o f t h e poem was b e t t e r t h a n t h e i n f e r i o r v e r s i o n he r e c e i v e d two marks. The degree o f p r e f e r e n c e shown was n o t t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . He c o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , r a t e t h e o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n as "good" and the i n f e r i o r v e r s i o n as " f a i r " o r " p o o r . " He c o u l d a l s o r a t e t h e o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n as " f a i r " and t h e i n f e r i o r v e r s i o n as " p o o r . " A l l t h r e e o f t h e s e r e s p o n s e s were a c c o r d e d e q u a l v a l u e . S i m i l a r l y , i f t h e s t u d e n t r a t e d t h e two v e r s i o n s o f t h e poem as b e i n g e q u a l i n v a l u e he r e c e i v e d one mark, r e g a r d l e s s o f whether he r a t e d them b o t h as "good," " f a i r " o r " p o o r . " F i n a l l y , i f t h e s t u d e n t gave t h e i n f e r i o r v e r s i o n a h i g h e r r a t i n g o f any s o r t t h a n t h e o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n he r e c e i v e d no mark. Rhythm T e s t I n o r d e r t o o b t a i n g r e a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y i n the s c o r i n g of t h i s t e s t , two o u t s i d e m a r k e r s , b o t h E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s u n f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s i n v o l v e d i n t h e s t u d y , were employed. Because the s t u d e n t s ' o n l y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n on t h e t e s t p a p e r was a randomly a s s i g n e d number, t h e markers were unaware of any s t u d e n t ' s grade o r s e x . A l t h o u g h t h e markers worked s e p a r a t e l y , t h e a c t u a l m a r k i n g was p r e c e d e d by d i s c u s s i o n w i t h t h e two markers t o g e t h e r about the g e n e r a l c r i t e r i a t o be a p p l i e d i n the m a r k i n g . A few sample p a p e r s were a l s o examined and agreement was r e a c h e d on s t a n d a r d s . The f i n a l s c o r e f o r each s t u d e n t was a " p o o l e d " s c o r e , r e a c h e d by a d d i n g t h e two m a r k e r s ' s c o r e s t o g e t h e r and d i v i d i n g by two. 54 The test was marked out of a t o t a l of t h i r t y , with each of the f i f t e e n items being marked on a three-point scale. For each item the marker had to decide how w e l l the rhythm of the l i n e completed or supplied by the student f i t t e d the pattern established by the other l i n e s . He then awarded the student two, one or no points, depending on whether he thought the student's l i n e f i t t e d the pattern w e l l , s a t i s f a c t o r i l y or poorly. No d i s t i n c t i o n was made between a poor response and no response at a l l ; both received no points. The markers were instructed to disregard such matters as s p e l l i n g , the meaning of the l i n e or the presence or absence of rhyme. They were also not informed of the l i n e o r i g i n a l l y supplied by the poet i n case t h i s knowledge would make them too r i g i d i n t h e i r expectations. Furthermore, i t was pointed out to them that the rhythm of some of the l i n e s was s u f f i c i e n t l y sophisticated that more than one response would be acceptable. Items seven, eight, ten and eleven, i n p a r t i c u l a r , f e l l into t h i s category. Imagery Test As mentioned previously, t h i s test was divided into three sections, andthe two markers who marked the Rhythm Test also marked the f i r s t and t h i r d sections of t h i s t e s t . The general remarks made about the procedures followed by the markers i n the Rhythm Test also apply to those two sections of t h i s t e s t . The same three-point r a t i n g scale was used, and the method of determining the student's f i n a l score f o r each section was the same. The second section was marked only by the researcher because less subjective judgment was involved. The f i r s t section was marked out of a t o t a l of ten. For each of the f i v e items the marker had to decide how e f f e c t i v e he found each comparison 55 and i t s supporting reason taken together. Depending on whether he thought the student's response to an item was good, s a t i s f a c t o r y or poor, the marker awarded a score of two, one or zero. The r e l a t i v e l y low c o r r e l a t i o n s between the two markers' scores, and the low r e l i a b i l i t y c o - e f f i c i e n t s ob-tained f o r each marker, as shown i n Chapter IV, suggest that t h i s section was the le a s t r e l i a b l e of a l l the t e s t s . In the second section no attempt was made to judge the q u a l i t y of the student's responses, the purpose being simply to record the number of acceptable responses made. An acceptable response was one that displayed some s i m i l a r i t y to the object given i n the item. For example, "an i c e cube i n a drink" was regarded as an acceptable response to the f i r s t item "an iceberg." Responses which i n the researcher's opinion bore no s i m i l a r i t y to the item object were rejected. The commonest type of response to be rejected was a purely a s s o c i a t i o n a l one. I t i s possible that the wording of the i n s t r u c t i o n s , which asked the student to write down as many things that the object "reminded him of" as he could, was responsible for leading some students astray. I t was, however, stressed to a l l the students that "remind you of" i n t h i s context meant "have s i m i l a r i t y to." It i s , therefore, more l i k e l y that the a s s o c i a t i o n a l responses given by some students were not the r e s u l t of a misunderstanding of the i n s t r u c t i o n s so much as the r e s u l t of a desire to get at le a s t something down on paper. The student's t o t a l score.for t h i s section was simply the number of acceptable.responses made. Here are some examples of accepted and rejected responses for the fourth item, a s n a i l - s h e l l : accepted: an ice-cream cone, a house, a danish pastry, a wizard's hat rejected: an o p t i c a l i l l u s i o n , the ocean, sea - s h e l l s , a slug 56 The t h i r d section, l i k e the f i r s t , was marked out of a t o t a l of ten. For each of the f i v e items the marker had to decide whether the student's completion of each sentence was good, s a t i s f a c t o r y or poor. Depending on whether he thought the student's response to an item was good, s a t i s f a c t o r y or poor, the marker awarded a score of two, one or zero. Teacher Questionnaire The questionnaire was marked out of a t o t a l of twenty-four, with each of the eight items rated on a four-point scale. The four possible responses the teacher could make to each question were given the numerical values of three, two, one and zero. The score of three was.accorded the best response and the score of zero was accorded the worst. Some of the f i v e teachers involved commented that they had d i f f i -c u l t y completing the questionnaire accurately because several of the questions referred to behaviours that they did not p a r t i c u l a r l y stress i n t h e i r classrooms. They c i t e d e s p e c i a l l y the questions r e l a t i n g to o r a l work. This d i f f i c u l t y , experienced by some, i f not a l l , of the teachers, casts a c e r t a i n doubt on the v a l i d i t y of the r e s u l t s obtained by the questionnaire. Conclusion The measures developed for t h i s study and the procedures followed i n t h e i r administration and marking, though not without some weaknesses, should c e r t a i n l y be adequate f o r testing the hypotheses presented i n t h i s chapter. By the means described above data can be c o l l e c t e d which can indicate whether further research i n t h i s area i s warranted, and, i f so, which d i r e c t i o n i t should take. Since the area with which t h i s study i s concerned, the measurement of appreciation and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p with creative performance i n l i t e r a t u r e , i s not one i n which extensive research has already taken place, any information that the data can provide should be of considerable i n t e r e s t and value to educators. CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction The general purpose of the study was to examine the corr e l a t i o n s be-tween: (1) students' appreciation of poetry, (2) t h e i r creative performance i n three aspects of poetry, (3) t h e i r s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y , and (4) th e i r teachers' assessment of t h e i r l e v e l of appreciation, as displayed i n t h e i r classwork. The e f f e c t of two independent v a r i a b l e s , age and sex, on performance i n each of the above s k i l l s was also examined. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the research hypotheses f o r the study were: H^: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry and the a b i l i t y to perform c r e a t i v e l y i n rhyme, rhythm and imagery (p>.5) H2: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between each of the above s k i l l s and s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y (p>.5) H^: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between a student's performance i n each of the above s k i l l s and h i s teacher's assessment of h i s l e v e l of appreciation (p>.5) H^: Performance i n each of the above s k i l l s improves s i g n i f i c a n t l y with age at the secondary l e v e l (a=.01) H,.: G i r l s perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than boys i n each of the above s k i l l s (ct=.01) 58 59 The data to test the above hypotheses were c o l l e c t e d by the following measures: four tests and a questionnaire developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the study, and a standardized s i l e n t reading t e s t . S i l e n t reading a b i l i t y was measured by the Gates-McGinitie Reading Test (Survey E, Form 2 M). The a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry was measured by the Poem Comparison Test. The a b i l i t y to perform c r e a t i v e l y i n rhyme, rhythm and imagery was measured by: (1) the Rhyme Test, (2) the Rhythm Test, and (3) the Imagery Test. The teacher's assessment of the student's l e v e l of appreciation was measured by the Teacher Questionnaire. Since a l l the measures, except the standardized reading t e s t , were developed as part of the present study, an item analysis was performed f o r each. The subjects used i n the study were grade eight and grade ten students i n a large metropolitan high school. Because no attempt was made to allow students to take a tes t they had missed on any day, p a r t i a l data are avai l a b l e f o r 112 students, but complete data are av a i l a b l e f o r only 95. The sample sizes f o r both cases are summarized i n Table 1 i n Chapter I I I . Item Analysis Item analysis was performed on each of the four tests and the question-naire developed s p e c i f i c a l l y for the study. The r e s u l t s of these analyses are presented below i n the following order: Rhyme Test, Poem Comparison Test, Rhythm Test, Imagery Test, and Teacher Questionnaire. Rhyme Test For the 105 students who took t h i s test c o r r e l a t i o n s were obtained between each item and the other fourteen items, and between each item and the t o t a l score. The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are summarized i n Table 2. TABLE 2 RHYME TEST: CORRELATION MATRIX* n=105 ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TOTA 1 73 67 73 70 73 75 76 62 73 67 59 68 68 73 86 2 68 72 69 65 71 72 67 68 74 53 70 70 72 86 3 65 62 65 67 69 56 68 66 51 77 77 62 80 4 65 73 79 77 69 74 66 59 73 73 71 87 5 65 63 64 55 64 64 54 65 65 66 78 6 75 75 59 72 56 54 66 66 68 82 7 76 62 82 71 56 79 79 70 88 8 64 78 69 67 79 79 79 90 9 63 59 47 59 59 62 75 10 70 60 74 74 76 88 11 56 80 80 69 84 12 58 58 56 70 13 • 69 69 87 14 69 86 15 83 COTAL ( ±5, 15 . \ -Mean inte r - i t e m c o r r e l a t i o n = U-1 I z« J .69 \ 1 .1=1+1 15 15 I I L=I j=_+r Mean item/test correlation-.84 *decimal point omitted 61 The mean c o r r e l a t i o n between each item and the t o t a l score was .84. As a measure of i n t e r n a l consistency the mean inter-item c o r r e l a t i o n was computed using Fisher's z. This c o r r e l a t i o n was .69. Examination of the item/test c o r r e l a t i o n s reveals that a l l the items behaved i n the proper d i r e c t i o n : that i s , they a l l had a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with the t o t a l score. Thus, no items were eliminated. Poem Comparison Test Item analysis was performed on the scores of the 95 students for whom complete data were a v a i l a b l e . The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are sum-marized i n Table 3. TABLE 3 POEM COMPARISON TEST: ITEM ANALYSIS Mean S.D. I.T.C. a T o t a l 12.29 3.64 — 1 1.31 0.68 0.31 2 1.18 0.77 0.02 3 0.77 0.83 0.20 4 1.30 0.77 0.16 5 1.02 0.74 0.21 6 0.51 0.77 0.18 7 0.94 0.80 0.31 8 1.58 0.61 0.15 9 0.88 0.77 0.21 10 1.08 0.82 - 0.05 11 0.64 0.84 0.16 12 1.10 0.80 0.36 = item/test c o r r e l a t i o n 62 Examination of the i t em//test c o r r e l a t i o n s reveals that a l l the items, except the tenth, behaved i n the proper d i r e c t i o n . A l l of the items were retained; item ten was retained since i t was an item i n which the o r i g i n a l version made e f f e c t i v e use of enjambement. The Hoyt Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y f o r t h i s test was .48, and the Standard Error of Measurement was 2.51. Rhythm Test This t e s t was scored by two markers. As a measure of i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y , the c o r r e l a t i o n between the scores of the two markers was computed for a l l the 108 students who took the t e s t . This c o r r e l a t i o n was .89. Item analysis was then performed on the two sets of scores of the 95 students for whom complete data were a v a i l a b l e . The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are summarized i n Table 4. Examination of the item/test corre-l a t i o n s reveals that a l l the items behaved i n the proper d i r e c t i o n f o r both markers. Again, no items were eliminated. The Hoyt Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y was .76 for Marker 1, and .78 for Marker 2. The Standard Error of Measurement was 2.78 for Marker 1, and 2.72 for Marker 2. Following t h i s analysis the two scores f o r each student were pooled by adding them together and d i v i d i n g by two. This pooled score for each student was used i n a l l subsequent analyses. T A B L E 4 R H Y T H M T E S T : I T E M A N A L Y S I S M a r k e r 1 M e a n S . D . I . Tr . C . T o t a l 1 4 . 0 6 5 . 9 0 -1 0 . 4 4 0 . 6 3 0 . 3 1 2 1 . 6 6 0 . 6 5 0 . 1 7 3 1 . 4 6 0 . 8 0 0 . 3 0 4 1 . 3 4 0 . 8 7 0 . 4 8 5 1 . 2 8 0 . 8 6 0 . 4 5 I 6 0 . 7 8 0 . 8 4 0 . 3 3 T 7 E 8 1 . 0 8 0 . 9 0 0 . 3 0 0 . 4 6 0 . 7 6 0 . 1 4 M 9 0 . 2 8 0 . 6 3 0 . 3 2 1 0 1 . 0 6 0 . 9 2 0 . 4 3 1 1 0 . 9 3 0 . 9 3 0 . 5 1 1 2 0 . 7 4 0 . 8 9 0 . 5 3 1 3 0 . 8 1 0 . 9 5 0 . 4 9 1 4 0 . 5 9 0 . 7 2 0 . 2 7 1 5 1 . 1 4 0 . 8 6 0 . 3 7 M a r k e r 2 Mean S.D. I . T . C . 1 1 . 9 2 0 . 4 4 1 . 2 7 1 . 1 6 1 . 1 9 l v 0 7 0 . 5 4 0 . 9 3 0 . 3 6 0 . 4 3 0 . 9 2 0 . 8 2 0 . 6 8 0 . 6 6 0 . 6 5 0 . 7 8 5 . 9 5 0 . 6 3 0 . 8 8 0 . 8 7 0 . 8 8 0 . 8 3 0 . 7 6 0 . 9 3 0 . 6 5 0 . 6 6 0 . 8 7 0 . 8 5 0 . 8 4 0 . 8 6 0 . 7 3 0 . 8 0 0 . 3 1 0 . 3 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 3 5 0 . 4 2 0 . 2 8 0 . 3 8 0 . 1 6 0 . 4 0 0 . 4 5 0 . 5 0 0 . 5 9 0 . 2 8 0 . 2 7 0 . 5 7 64 Imagery Test This test was divided into three sections. The f i r s t and t h i r d sections were scored by the same two markers as were used i n the Rhythm Test. The i n t e r -r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r these two sections were, re s p e c t i v e l y , .65 for Section I and .80 for Section I I I . Item analysis was then performed on the scores obtained i n a l l three sections of the test by the 95 students for whom complete data were a v a i l a b l e . The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are summarized i n Table 5. In Section I, examination of the item/test co r r e l a t i o n s reveals that a l l the items behaved i n the proper d i r e c t i o n f o r both markers. Thus, no items were eliminated. The Hoyt Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y was .52 for Marker 1, and .25 for Marker 2. The Standard Error of Measurement was 1.10 f o r Marker 1, and 1.53 f o r Marker 2. The small number of items i n t h i s section i s a p l a u s i b l e explanation for the discrepancy between the observed r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r the two markers. In Section I I , examination of the item/test co r r e l a t i o n s reveals that a l l the items behaved i n the proper d i r e c t i o n . Thus, a l l the items were retained. The Hoyt Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y f o r t h i s s ection was .73, and the Standard Error of Measurement was 1.76. In Section I I I , examination of the item/test c o r r e l a t i o n s reveals that a l l the items behaved i n the proper d i r e c t i o n f o r both markers. Thus, no items were eliminated. The Hoyt Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y was .73 f o r Marker 1, and .58 for Marker 2. The Standard Error of Measurement was 1.13 for Marker 1, and 1.53 for Marker 2. Following t h i s analysis the two scores for each student i n the f i r s t and t h i r d sections were pooled by adding them together and d i v i d i n g by two. 65 TABLE 5 IMAGERY TEST: ITEM ANALYSIS SECTION I Marker 1 Marker 2 Mean S.D. I.T.C. Mean S.D. I.T'.C. T o t a l 6.73 1.77 - 4.62 1.97 1 1.48 0.54 0.18 1.02 0.73 0.13 1 2 1.55 0.58 0.36 1.02 0.85 0.20 T-3 1.16 0.65 0.38 0.77 0.82 0.07 E 4 1.22 0.57 0.18 0.53 0.80 0.13 AM 5 1.31 0.67 0.33 1.28 0.75 0.04 SECTION II Mean S.D. I.T.C. T o t a l 7.22 3.76 -1 2.06 1.07 0.50 I 2 1.54 1.30 0.54 T 3 1.47 1.20 0.58 E 4 1.33 0.97 0.53 M 5 0.82 0.84 0.31 SECTION I I I Marker 1 Marker 2 Mean S.D. I.T.C. Mean S.D. • I.T.C. T o t a l 6.64 2.45 - 5.19 2.65 -1 1.39 0.62 0.41 0.81 0.84 0.24 1 2 1.45 0.73 0.58 1.38 0.89 0.42 T 3 1.10 0.60 0.39 0.82 0.85 0.32 E 4 1.37 0.76 0.56 1.14 0.88 0.34 M 5 1.34 0.79 0.54 1.04 0.87 0.39 66 These two pooled scores were then added to the score for the second section to form a composite score for the whole te s t . In a l l subsequent analyses, the pooled section scores and the t o t a l test score thus obtained were the ones used. Teacher Questionnaire Item analysis was performed on the scores obtained by the 95 students f o r whom complete data were a v a i l a b l e . The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are summarized i n Table 6. Examination of the item/test c o r r e l a t i o n s r e -veals that a l l the items behaved i n the proper d i r e c t i o n . Consequently, no items were eliminated. TABLE 6 TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE: ITEM ANALYSIS Mean S.D. I.T.C. T o t a l 10.52 5.92 1 1.67 0.87 0.71 2 1.17 0.82 0.85 3 1.35 0.95 0 .84 I 4 1.17 0.90 0.84 T 5 1.24 0.82 0.83 E 6 1.48 0.84 0.72 M 7 1.21 0.82 0.83 8 1.22 0.85 0.90 67 The Hoyt Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y for t h i s measure was .95, and the Standard E r r o r of Measurement was 1.24. Corre l a t i o n Analysis Two sets of c o r r e l a t i o n analysis were performed. The f i r s t analysis employed the scores of a l l the 112 students f o r whom p a r t i a l data were ava i l a b l e , and included a l l scores and sub-scores. The second analysis employed the scores of only the 95 students f o r whom complete data,were av a i l a b l e , and included only the t o t a l scores f o r the four tests developed fo r the study, the t o t a l reading t e s t score and the teacher r a t i n g . The res u l t s of the f i r s t analysis are summarized i n Tables 11 and 12 i n Appendix C. The re s u l t s of the second analysis are summarized i n Table 7. TABLE 7 CORRELATION MATRIX: TOTAL SCORES (COMPLETE DATA)* n=95 Rhyme Poem Rhythm Imagery Reading Teacher Test Comp.Test Test Test Test Rating .30 .66 .58 .68 .51 .29 .34 .26 .15 .54 .48 .32 .57 .45 .60 Rhyme Test Poem Comp.Test Rhythm Test Imagery Test Reading Test Teacher Rating C o r r e l a t i o n s greater than .5 are s i g n i f i c a n t 68 Based on Table 7 (Complete Data), the four measures that c o r r e l a t e most highly with one another are: Rhyme Test, Rhythm Test, Imagery Test and Reading Test. The co r r e l a t i o n s among these tests range between .48 (Rhythm Test, Reading Test) and .68 (Rhyme Test, Reading T e s t ) . The correlations of the Teacher Rating with these measures range between a high of .60 with the Reading Test, and a low of .32 with the Rhythm Test. The measure that correlates l e a s t with the other f i v e i s the Poem Comparison Test. I t s highest c o r r e l a t i o n , .34 with the Imagery Test, i s only s l i g h t l y greater than the lowest c o r r e l a t i o n achieved among the other f i v e variables (.32 Rhythm Test, Teacher Rating). Its lowest c o r r e l a t i o n i s .15 with the Teacher Rating. A p r i n c i p a l components an a l y s i s , performed on the set of s i x variables (n=95), yielded two f a c t o r s . The factor pattern c o e f f i c i e n t s corresponding to a varimax r o t a t i o n are presented i n Table 8. P r i n c i p a l loadings on fa c t o r TABLE 8 FACTOR ANALYSIS: TOTAL SCORES (COMPLETE DATA)* n=95 Factor I Factor II Rhyme Test Poem Comp. Test .82 .68 Rhythm Test Imagery Test Reading Test .65 .46 .72 .95 Teacher Rating .69 *0nly factor pattern c o e f f i c i e n t s greater than .400 i n absolute value are shown. 69 one are, i n order of importance, from the Reading Test, Rhyme Test, Imagery Test, Teacher Rating, and Rhythm Test. Factor two, a doublet, received i t s highest loadings from the Poem Comparison Test and the Rhythm Test. Analysis of Variance A 2x2 (grade x sex) univariate analysis of variance was performed for each of the following f i v e dependent v a r i a b l e s : Rhyme Test, Poem Comparison Test, Rhythm Test, Imagery Test, and Reading Test. The Type I error rate was set at .01.1 The r e s u l t s of these analyses are summarized i n Tables 9 and 10, and Figures 1,2, and 3. TABLE 9 CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS C e l l Rhyme Poem Comp. Rhythm Imagery Reading Grade 8 76.42 11.34 10.23 16.48 74.34 boys(n=26) 28.28 2.77 4.47 4.28 21.95 Grade 8 97.44 11.56 13.81 18.97 78.94 girls(n=34) 22.12 3.49 5.66 5.50 17.34 Grade 10 78.83 12.08 12.33 19.58 76.58 boys(n=12) 24.30 3.42 5.03 5.94 23.99 Grade 10 104.09 14.52 15.17 20.72 79.13 girls(n=23) 32.27 4.05 6.59 7.33 23.61 Note: Mean on f i r s t l i n e Standard deviation on second l i n e M u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of variance was f i r s t performed with the Type I error rate set at .05. At t h i s l e v e l , a s i g n i f i c a n t difference was obtained for sex (P<.0005) but not for grade (P<.0610) nor for the i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and grade (P<.5502). Since, however, the l e v e l of p r o b a b i l i t y f or the difference for grade was very close to s i g n i f i c a n c e , i t was decided to per-form univariate analysis of variance. To compensate f o r the expected increase i n the Type I error rate, the Type I error rate for these analyses was set at .01 rather than .05. 70 TABLE 10 ANALYSES OF VARIANCE a) Rhyme Test b) Poem Comparison Test c) Rhythm Test d) Imagery Test e) Reading Test Source d.f. m.s. F a) Sex (S) 1 11996.89 16.66* Grade (G) 1 561.48 a SxG 1-- 92.15 Within 91 b) S 1 31.50 2.64 G 1 99.46 8.34* SxG 1 25.44 2.13 Within 91 c) S 1 273.72 8.92* G 1 59.07 1.93 SxG 1 2.79 Within 91 d) S 1 111.85 3.16 G 1 111.45 3.35 SxG 1 9.44 Within 91 e) S 1 358.43 G 1 20.04 SxG 1 21.54 Within 91 * p < .01 a F < 1.0 71 At t h i s l e v e l , s i g n i f i c a n t differences were obtained f o r sex on the Rhyme Test and the Rhythm Test. Examination of the means reveals that g i r l s performed better than boys. A s i g n i f i c a n t difference was obtained f o r grade only on the Poem Comparison Test. Examination of the means reveals that the grade tens performed better than the grade eights. The absence of s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s indicates that the observed sex e f f e c t f o r the Rhyme Test and the Rhythm Test i s consistent across grade (see Figures 1- and 2); s i m i l a r l y , the observed grade e f f e c t for the Poem Comparison Test i s consistent across sex (see Figure 3). FIGURE 1 RHYME TEST: PLOT OF MEAN SCORES 110 -70 4 BOYS SEX GIRLS 72 FIGURE 2 RHYTHM TEST: PLOT OF MEAN SCORES 16 -s 15 - 10 c 14 -0 13 -R 12 -E 11 -10 -9 -BOYS GIRLS SEX FIGURE 3 POEM COMPARISON TEST: PLOT OF MEAN SCORES 16 -S 15 • C 14 0 13 4 R 12 E 11 -10 -9 -10 GRADE 73 Thus, the scores of both the grade eight and grade ten g i r l s were s i g n i -f i c a n t l y higher than the scores of both the grade eight and grade ten boys on the Rhyme Test and the Rhythm Test, and the scores of both the grade ten boys and g i r l s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the scores of both the grade eight boys and g i r l s on the Poem Comparison Test. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found f o r eit h e r grade or sex on the Imagery Test or the Reading Test. Conclusion The analyses of the data, reported above, suggest the following conclusions. 1. There i s not a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry and the a b i l i t y to perform c r e a t i v e l y i n rhyme, rhythm and imagery ( p < . 5 ) 2. There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y and the a b i l i t y to perform c r e a t i v e l y i n rhyme, rhythm and imagery ( p > . 5 ) 3. There i s not a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y and the a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry ( p < . 5 ) 4. There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between a teacher's assessment of a student's l e v e l of appreciation and (a) a student's s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y , and (b) h i s a b i l i t y to perform c r e a t i v e l y i n rhyme and imagery ( p > . 5 ) 5. There i s not a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between a teacher's assessment of a student's l e v e l of appreciation and (a) a student's a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry, and (b) h i s a b i l i t y to perform c r e a t i v e l y i n rhythm ( p < . 5 ) 74 6. The a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry improves s i g n i f i c a n t l y with age (a=.01) 7. S i l e n t reading a b i l i t y and the a b i l i t y to perform c r e a t i v e l y i n rhyme, rhythm and imagery do not improve s i g n i f i c a n t l y with age (a=.01) . 8. G i r l s perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than boys i n creative a b i l i t y i n rhyme and rhythm (a=.01) 9. G i r l s do not perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than boys i n (a) s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y , (b) a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry, and (c) creative a b i l i t y i n imagery (a=.01) CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary In spite of the widespread concern expressed by E'ngMsfti teachers regarding the need to improve t h e i r students' appreciation of what they read, there have been remarkably few co n t r o l l e d attempts to assess student growth i n t h i s area. One of the main reasons f o r t h i s s i t u a t i o n has been the lack of acceptable techniques for measuring t h i s admittedly complex behaviour. The present research was designed to develop and test a new objective measure of one important aspect of appreciation, the a b i l i t y to discriminate on the basis of value i n poetry. The study also examined the cor r e l a t i o n s between t h i s measure of appreciation, three measures of creative performance i n d i f f e r e n t aspects of poetry, a subjective measure of the students' l e v e l of appreciation, and a standardized reading t e s t . In addition, the e f f e c t of two independent v a r i a b l e s , age and sex, on each of the above measures was examined. The only measure not developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the study was the measure of s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y . This measure was the Gates-McGinitie  Reading Test, Survey E, Form 2 M. The a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry was measured by the Poem Comparison Test. Creative performance i n the three aspects of poetry, namely rhyme, rhythm, and imagery, was measured 75 76 by the Rhyme Test, Rhythm Test and Imagery Test r e s p e c t i v e l y . The assessment of the students' l e v e l of l i t e r a r y appreciation, made by the English teachers of the students involved, was measured by the Teacher Questionnaire. A l l of the measures developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the study are described i n d e t a i l i n Chapter I I I . The j u n i o r secondary l e v e l was selected as a su i t a b l e l e v e l at which to conduct the research, and the subjects were grade eight and grade ten students i n a large metropolitan secondary school. The t o t a l number of students involved was 112', but because no attempt was made to l e t a student take at a l a t e r date a test missed on any day, the number f o r whom complete data i s av a i l a b l e i s 95. The sample sizes f o r both cases are summarized i n table 1 i n Chapter I I I . The tests were admin-is t e r e d over a period of seven school days i n A p r i l 1975. The question-naire was given, without p r i o r warning, to the English teachers of the students involved i n the study at the end of the school year. The c o n t r o l l i n g questions f o r the study were as follows: 1. What r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f any, ex i s t s between appreciation of poetry and creative performance i n poetry? 2. What r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f any, e x i s t s between appreciation of poetry and s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y ? 3. What r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f any, ex i s t s between students' appreciation of poetry and t h e i r teachers' assessment of t h e i r l e v e l of appreciation? 4. Do appreciation of poetry and creative performance i n poetry increase from grade eight to grade ten? 5. Are g i r l s better than boys i n appreciation of poetry and creative performance i n poetry? The general hypotheses for the study were: 1. There would be p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between a l l the measures employed 2. Grade ten students would perform better than grade eight students on a l l the measures employed 3. G i r l s would perform better than boys on a l l the measures employed S p e c i f i c a l l y , the research hypotheses f o r the study were: H^: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between discrimination i n poetry and creative performance i n rhyme, rhythm, and imagery ( p > .5) H^: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between each of the above s k i l l s and s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y , ( p > 1 . 5 ) H^: , There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between a student's performance i n each of the above s k i l l s and h i s teacher's assess-ment of h i s l e v e l of appreciation ( p > .5) H^: Grade ten students perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than grade eight students i n each of the above s k i l l s (a = .01) H^: G i r l s perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than boys i n each of the above s k i l l s (a = .01) Based on the data reported i n Chapter IV, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. There i s riot a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between discrimination i n poetry and creative performance i n rhyme, rhythm, and imagery 2. There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y and creative performance i n rhyme, rhythm, and imagery 3. There i s not a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y and discrimination i n poetry 78 4. There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the teacher's assessment of a student's l e v e l of appreciation and (a) the student's s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y , and (b) the student's creative performance i n rhyme,and imagery, 5. There i s not a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the teacher's assessment of a student's l e v e l of appreciation and (a) the student's discrimination i n poetry, and (b) the student's creative performance i n rhythm. 6. Grade ten students dt_ show s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n poetry than grade eight students 7. Grade ten students (a) do not show s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y , (b) do not perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better c r e a t i v e l y i n rhyme, rhythm, and imagery, than grade eight students. 8. G i r l s perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better c r e a t i v e l y than boys i n rhyme and rhythm. 9. G i r l s do not perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than boys i n (a) s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y , (b) d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n poetry, and (c) creative performance i n imagery Summarized, these conclusions t e l l us, iaccording to the data, that: 1. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between appreciation of poetry and creative performance i n poetry 2. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between appreciation of poetry and s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y 3. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between students' appreciation of poetry and t h e i r teachers' assessment of t h e i r appreciation 4. Grade ten students are superior to grade eight students i n appre-c i a t i o n of poetry, but not i n reading a b i l i t y or i n creative 79 p e r f o r m a n c e i n p o e t r y 5 . G i r l s a r e s u p e r i o r t o b o y s i n c r e a t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e i n r h y m e a n d r h y t h m , b u t n o t i n a p p r e c i a t i o n o f p o e t r y , , c r e a t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e i n i m a g e r y , o r r e a d i n g a b i l i t y I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e F i n d i n g s T h e s i n g l e m o s t s u r p r i s i n g f i n d i n g t o c o m e o u t o f t h e d a t a i s t h a t , i n t h e s a m p l e t e s t e d , t h e r e w a s n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o g r a d e s i n s i l e n t r e a d i n g a b i l i t y , a s m e a s u r e d b y t h e G a t e s - M c G i n i t i e R e a d i n g T e s t . T h e t e a c h e r ' s m a n u a l f o r t h e t e s t g i v e s g r a d e n o r m s f o r t h e s c o r e s o b t a i n e d i n e a c h o f t h e t h r e e s e c t i o n s o f t h e t e s t . 1 C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e m e a n s c o r e s o f t h e s t u d e n t s i n v o l v e d i n t h e s t u d y ( s e e t a b l e 9 ) w i t h t h e g r a d e n o r m s g i v e n i n t h e m a n u a l r e v e a l s t h a t t h e g r a d e e i g h t b o y s w e r e r e a d i n g a t a m i d - g r a d e e i g h t l e v e l , t h e g r a d e t e n b o y s a t a l a t e g r a d e e i g h t l e v e l , a n d b o t h t h e g r a d e e i g h t a n d g r a d e t e n g i r l s a t a n e a r l y g r a d e n i n e l e v e l . T h e g r a d e e i g h t s t u d e n t s w e r e , t h e r e f o r e , r e a d i n g a t o r s l i g h t l y a h e a d o f t h e i r l e v e l , b u t t h e g r a d e t e n s t u d e n t s w e r e r e a d i n g o n e t o t w o g r a d e s b e l o w t h e i r s . I f t h i s l a c k o f a s i g n i f i -c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n r e a d i n g a b i l i t y o n t h e p a r t o f t h e t w o g r a d e s i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p e c u l i a r t o t h e s a m p l e , t h e n t h e g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f t h e f i n d i n g s i n t h e s t u d y w o u l d b e r e s t r i c t e d . T h i s a p p a r e n t l a c k o f g r o w t h i n r e a d i n g a b i l i t y b e t w e e n t h e t w o g r a d e s d o e s h a v e o n e a d v a n t a g e , h o w e v e r , i n t h a t i t m a k e s t h e f i n d i n g s c o n c e r n i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n p o e t r y a l l t h e m o r e s t r i k i n g . T h e s e f i n d i n g s a r e : 1 . D i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n p o e t r y d o e s n o t c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h ^ G a t e s - M c G i n i t i e R e a d i n g T e s t , S u r v e y E , F o r m 2 M . ( N e w Y o r k : T e a c h e r ' C o l l e g e , C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 6 5 ) , p . 1 6 ( T e a c h e r ' s M a n u a l ) . 80 e i t h e r s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y or creative performance i n rhyme, rhythm, and imagery 2. Discrimination i n poetry i s the only one of the a b i l i t i e s measured to show a s i g n i f i c a n t increase with age between grade eight and grade ten Before any conclusions are drawn from these two findings, however, two important caveats need to be considered. The f i r s t i s that the Poem Comparison Test, the measure of a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry, was the only measure i n which the p o s s i b i l i t y of a random score was an appreciable f a c t o r . In f a c t , examination of the means for t h i s test (see Figure 3) shows that of the four c e l l s i n the sample, only the grade ten g i r l s had a mean score noticeably above the random score of twelve. These r e s u l t s suggest that for the younger students at least t h i s measure may not be t o t a l l y r e l i a b l e . Nevertheless, the range of scores achieved i n the sample as a whole, and i n each of the four c e l l s , indicates that the test i s e f f e c t i v e i n separating the students with more discrimination from those with l e s s . Out of a possible maximum score of twenty-four, the scores of a l l the students who took the test ranged between a low of s i x and a high of twenty-three. With the scores divided i n t o c e l l s , the grade eight boys had the smallest range, between s i x and seventeen, and the grade ten g i r l s the l a r g e s t , between s i x and twenty-three. The grade ten boys had the second smallest range, between seven and twenty, and the grade eight g i r l s the second highest, between seven and twenty-two. The range of scores of the grade ten boys, however, may w e l l have been affected by the r e l a t i v e l y small number i n the c e l l (eighteen). If we consider only the very high scores, those of twenty and over, the s u p e r i o r i t y of the grade ten g i r l s i s again apparent, since they had three students i n t h i s category, the grade ten boys 81 and the grade eight g i r l s one each, and the grade eight boys none. The second caveat i s that, because more elaborate precautions to guard against the presence of a reading a b i l i t y f actor were taken with the Poem Comparison Test than with the measures of creative a b i l i t y , i t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y . l o w e r c o r r e l a t i o n with the reading test may simply ind i c a t e that i t was more successful i n eliminating the reading factor than were the other measures. I t seems u n l i k e l y , however, given the nature of the three measures of creative a b i l i t y , that reading a b i l i t y was a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n them, whereas i t c e r t a i n l y would have been i n the Poem Comparison Test, i f the precautions described i n Chapter III had not been taken. With these two possible l i m i t a t i o n s i n mind, then, we may conclude from the findings that: 1. There i s a factor of a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry which i s d i s t i n c t from both s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y and the a b i l i t y to perform c r e a t i v e l y i n rhyme, rhythm, and imagery 2. Of the a b i l i t i e s measured, the a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry i s the one most c l e a r l y affected by maturation Given the f a i l u r e of the re'a'ding test to f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e -rence between the grades, the s i m i l a r f a i l u r e of the three measures of creative a b i l i t y i n poetry (the Rhyme.Test, the Rhythm Test, and the Imagery Test) to f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i s less s u r p r i s i n g , since each of these measures did have a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with the reading t e s t . These cor r e l a t i o n s do, however, suggest 'that s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y i s an important component i n the a b i l i t y to perform c c r e a t i v e l y i n rhyme, rhythm and imagery. The s i g n i f i c a n t l y superior performance of the g i r l s i n the Rhyme Test and Rhythm Test, but not i n any of the other measures, i s not easy 82 to explain. Gunn found that a l i k i n g f o r rhyme and rhythm formed one part of a b i p o l a r factor of a p p r e c i a t i o n . 1 The subjects i n h i s study, however, were a l l boys, so he was,not able to determine whether t h i s preference was more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of g i r l s than boys.. Nor has i t been established that a l i k i n g f o r rhyme and rhythm necess a r i l y r e s u l t s i n superior creative performance i n these areas. Nevertheless, the findings of the present research lead to "the conclusion that g i r l s do perform c r e a t i v e l y i n rhyme and rhythm s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than boys. What was. perhaps more s u r p r i s i n g than the g i r l s ' s u p e r i o r i t y i n rhyme and rhythm was t h e i r f a i l u r e to display s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry. Three of the studies, mentioned i n Chapter II commented on the d e f i n i t e s u p e r i o r i t y i n l i t e r a r y d i s -crimination shown by females over males. 2 Two studies, however, reported only s l i g h t differences i n response between boys and g i r l s , although i n each case the superior performance was by the g i r l s . 3 As mentioned above, examination of the means for the Poem Comparison Test (see Figure 3) reveals that most of the s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the grade eight and grade ten scores on t h i s test was due to the superior performance XD.G. Gunn, "Factors i n the Appreciation of Poetry," B r i t i s h Journal  of Education Psychology, Vol. 21 (1951), p. 101. 2I.A. Richards, P r a c t i c a l C r i t i c i s m (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World), 1929, p. 312; E.M. Eppel, "A new test of poetry d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , " B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 20 (1950), p. 115; W.S. Harpin, "The Appreciation of Prose," Educational Review, Vol. 19 (1966), p. 21, 3J.N. B r i t t o n , "Evidence of Improvement i n Poetic Judgment," B r i t i s h Journal of Psychology, Vol. 4 (1954), p. 200; J.R. Squire, The Responses of Adolescents While Reading Four Short Stories (Champaign, 111.: National Council of Teachers of E n g l i s h ) , 1964, p. 21. 83 of the grade ten g i r l s . The studies c i t e d above, which found that females showed greater d i s c r i m i n a t i o n than males, used subjects at the grade ten l e v e l and above. Squire's study, on the other hand, which found l i t t l e d i fference between the sexes i n response, used subjects at the ninth and tenth grade l e v e l , a sample somewhat s i m i l a r i n age to the one used i n the present study. These fac t s lend support to the suggestionsthafctthe greater success of the Poem Comparison Test i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between boys and g i r l s at the grade ten l e v e l compared with the grade eight l e v e l was because the s u p e r i o r i t y of g i r l s i n l i t e r a r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n does not become c l e a r l y apparent u n t i l the l a t e r years of secondary school. Another possible.explanation that must be considered, however, i s that the small number of boys at the grade ten l e v e l constituted an unrepresentative sample, and that, had the sample been larger, the difference between the g i r l s and boys would have been l e s s . This ex-planation i s supported by the f a c t that more boys were included i n the c l a s s l l i s t s than were present for a l l the t e s t s . Perhaps the boys who were absent were s u f f i c i e n t l y superior i n a b i l i t y from the boys who were present to have lessened the difference between the scores of the g i r l s and the boys at the grade ten l e v e l . F i n a l l y , the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the Teacher Rating and the other measures are i n t e r e s t i n g . The Teacher Rating had i t s highest c o r r e l a t i o n with the reading test (.60), and i t s lowest c o r r e l a t i o n with the Poem Compar i son Test ( . 1 5 ) . The c o r r e l a t i o n s with the Rhyme, Imagery and Rhythm Tests were . 5 1 , . 45 , and .32 r e s p e c t i v e l y . These figures show that the questionnaire was more successful i n i d e n t i f y i n g the students' reading a b i l i t y and creative a b i l i t y i n the three aspects 84 of poetry than i t was i n i d e n t i f y i n g t h e i r a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry. In view of the fa c t that several of the items i n the question-naire referred to various forms of creative expression, both o r a l and written, on the part of the students, the r e s u l t s are understandable. However, as was mentioned i n Chapter I I I , several teachers commented on the d i f f i c u l t y they had completing the questionnaire, and i t s very high Hoyt Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y ( .95) arouses the suspicion that, rather than responding to each item separately, the teachers were unduly influenced by the o v e r a l l grade which they had j u s t assigned t h e i r students at the end of the semester. Weaknesses of the Study Various weaknesses i n the study have already been mentioned i n passing, but a summary of the most important would now be i n order. The main weakness i n the study was an imbalance i n the sample between g i r l s and boys, grade eights and grade tens. The reasons for th i s imbalance are outlined i n Chapter I I I , but the most serious e f f e c t was that grade ten boys were under-represented. However, rather than randomly reduce the numbers of the other groups to match the numbers of the grade ten boys, i t was decided to proceed with the analyses using data from as many students as possi b l e , and make the necessary s t a t i s t i c a l compensation for the unequal numbers. Another weakness i n the study was the number of rather low estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y achieved by some of the measures employed. The main sources of concern i n t h i s respect were the Poem Comparison Test and the Imagery Test. 85 In the case of the Poem Comparison Test the problem of the random score, mentioned i n the previous section, i s probably at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y responsible f o r the low r e l i a b i l i t y . An a l t e r n a t i v e method of scoring the students' responses i n th i s test would be to mark each item not on a three-point scale but on a two-point scale, treating the preference f o r the o r i g i n a l poem as the only correct response and treating both the preference f o r the i n f e r i o r version and the preference f o r neither version as inc o r r e c t responses. This method would have the advantage of lowering the scores of the " f e n c e - s i t t e r s , " those students .whoconsistently recorded a preference f o r neither version. Under the system of scoring used i n thi s study, i t was possible f o r such a student to achieve a score of twelve out of twenty-four, whereas under the two-point system he would get zero. A f t e r the analysis of the data was complete, the Poem Comparison Test was re-scored using the two-point s c a l e , and an informal check was made to determine whether t h i s method of scoring would have had any noticeable e f f e c t on the r e s u l t s obtained from the t e s t . The decision was that the use of the two-point scale, instead of the three-point, would not have had any such e f f e c t on the o v e r a l l r e s u l t s . Nevertheless, i t i s arguable that a lack of a preference i s no better than a wrong preference and that the responses should be treated as being of equal value. In future administrations of the te s t , therefore, the two-point scale i s probably the one "that should be used. In the case of the Imagery Test the r e l i a b i l i t i e s achieved by both markers i n both the f i r s t and t h i r d sections of the test were d e f i n i t e l y lower than the r e l i a b i l i t i e s achieved by the same two markers i n the Rhythm Test. There are several possible explanations f o r t h i s s i t u a t i o n . 86 The f i r s t i s that there were f a r fewer items i n each section of t h i s test than there were i n the Rhythm Test ( f i v e compared to f i f t e e n ) , and an increase i n the number of items i n a measure w i l l usually cause a corresponding increase i n i t s r e l i a b i l i t y . Increasing the number of items i n the f i r s t and t h i r d sections of the Imagery Test from f i v e to ten would be one simple improvement that could be made to the test to improve i t s r e l i a b i l i t y . Another possible explanation f o r the low r e l i a b i l i t y of the test i s the method of scoring used. For the purpose of s i m p l i c i t y i n marking, a three-point scale was used. However, McColly and Remstad have shown i n t h e i r evaluation of composition r a t i n g scales that:(a) odd number scales are susceptible to the error of c e n t r a l tendency, and (b) although four-point and six-point scales do not d i f f e r i n terms of t h e i r r e l i a b i -l i t y , the former are to be preferred i n terms of the saving of the r a t e r s ' time and e f f o r t . 1 Therefore, i n any future administrations of the tests the use of the four-point scale for both the Rhythm Test and the Imagery Test would be recommended. Th i r d l y , the f a c t that both markers achieved higher r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r the t h i r d s ection than the f i r s t s e ction of the Imagery Test suggests that the items i n the f i r s t section were p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t to evaluate. In the t h i r d section the students' responses were more structured, and therefore, p o s s i b l y , easier for the markers to score. It seems l i k e l y that more time i s needed to prepare markers.for the /'W. McColly and Robert Remstad, "Composition Rating Scales for General Merit: An Experimental Evaluation," Journal of Education Research, Vol. 59 (October, 1 9 6 5 ) , pp. 5 5 - 5 6 , c i t e d i n P. Shapiro, An Investigation  of Two Methods of Teaching Poetry to Children (Boston: Boston University School of Education, 1969 ) , p. 46. 87 f i r s t section than for the t h i r d section of the test so that a more consistent standard can be applied. Of the four measures of student performance developed for t h i s study, the Imagery Test was the only one not to f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t difference on either sex or grade. The f a u l t s i n the test discussed above may be a p a r t i a l explanation for this f a i l u r e , since for both sex and grade the differences between the mean scores approached but did not quite a t t a i n s i g n i f i c a n c e at the 5% l e v e l . Implications f o r Research At best, the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s of t h i s study i s l i m i t e d to students of the same age and socio-economic status as the students i n the sample; that i s to say, grade eight and grade ten students of average socio-economic background i n a large metropolitan secondary school. Students of a d i f f e r e n t age and background might w e l l react d i f f e r e n t l y to the measures employed. Some doubt as to the p o s s i b i l i t y of even t h i s degree of generaliz-ation';: however, has been cast by the performance of the sample on the standardized reading t e s t , where no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two grades was foynd. Perhaps the most urgent need i s for further research, at least at the l o c a l l e v e l , to determine whether i t r e f l e c t s a s i t u a t i o n t y p i c a l of a larger population. If the l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n should prove to be the case then a concentrated e f f o r t to improve the reading programme at the j u n i o r secondary l e v e l would c l e a r l y be i n d i -cated. ' Assuming, however, that the lack of measurable growth i n reading a b i l i t y was a p e c u l i a r i t y of the sample, then r e p l i c a t i o n of the study with a more t y p i c a l sample i n t h i s regard would be worthwhile. I t i s 88 possible that a sample with a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n reading a b i l i t y based on age would display s i m i l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n creative a b i l i t y i n poetry, and an even more s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry. I t would also be advisable i n any such r e p l i c a t i o n to increase the range i n age of the students tested, e s p e c i a l l y upward to the senior secondary l e v e l . Two years may be too l i t t l e time to produce a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n a b i l i t y i n a l l the areas tested. The possibly greater success of the Poem Comparison Test i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between g i r l s and boys at the grade ten l e v e l compared with at the grade eight l e v e l suggests that the r e l i a b i l i t y of th i s measure, i n p a r t i c u l a r , would be greater with generally older students than the ones used i n the sample. The findings concerning the a b i l i t y to discriminate i n poetry r a i s e the question of whether t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s r e s t r i c t e d to poetry or whether i t applies equally to prose l i t e r a t u r e . This would c e r t a i n l y be a. f r u i t f u l area f o r further research. Both Burt on and Choppin f e l t that a student's appreciation w a s , f a i r l y s p e c i f i c and could not be judged r e l i a b l y by a s i n g l e t e s t . 1 Perhaps the measures used i n the present study could be used as part of a battery of tests designed to measure the c o r r e l a t i o n between a student's appreciation of l i t e r a t u r e and h i s creative performance i n i t . F i n a l l y , of the measures developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r th i s study, the Poem Comparison Test, because i t was the only measure to f i n d a s i g n i f i -cant difference between the two grades, probably o f f e r s the greatest value as a research instrument. I t could, f o r example, be used i n l o n g i -t u d i n a l studies as a measure of the l e v e l of development i n appreciation iD.L. vBurton, ''The.^Relationship of Appreciation to Certain Measurable Factors," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 43 (1952), p. 438; B.H. Choppin, "Can L i t e r a r y Appreciation Be Measured Objectively?" International Review of Education, Vol. 15 (1969), p. 247. 89 of poetry of d i f f e r e n t grades at the secondary l e v e l . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i f p a r a l l e l forms were developed, i t could provide a us e f u l pre- and post-test i n experimental studies of the e f f e c t of various teaching s t y l e s on the development of appreciation of poetry i n students. The success of the test i n t h i s study i s c e r t a i n l y s u f f i c i e n t to encourage i t s further development and use i n the future. If the Poem Comparison Test i s to be used i n future research, however, i t would be advisable f o r i t to be examined f i r s t with regard to i t s v a l i -d i t y . S u p e r f i c i a l l y , at l e a s t , i t appears to be an e f f e c t i v e measure of appreciation. Nevertheless, i t s f a i l u r e to cor r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with e i t h e r the measures of creative performance i n poetry.or the teachers' assessment of t h e i r students' l e v e l of appreciation must cast some doubt upon i t s v a l i d i t y . Perhaps one of the f i r s t requirements would be f o r t h i s study to be followed up with another v a l i d i t y study using a d i f f e r e n t measure of appreciation. One p o s s i b i l i t y f o r such a measure x<?ould be the analysis of the responses made by students themselves on a questionnaire designed to e l i c i t t h e i r attitudes towards l i t e r a t u r e . I f the v a l i d i t y of the Poem Comparison Test could be established by obtaining a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between i t and a measure such as the one described above, i t s value as a research instrument would undoubtedly be increased dramatically. Implications f o r Teaching Perhaps the find i n g with the most d i r e c t i m p l i c a t i o n f o r teaching was that appreciation of poetry increased between grade eight and grade ten, whereas s i l e n t reading a b i l i t y and creative performance i n poetry 9 0 did not. The implications of the f i n d i n g concerning the lack of growth i n reading a b i l i t y have already been commented upon and need not be dwelt upon here. Although the f i n d i n g on appreciation of poetry i s very encouraging, the f i n d i n g on creative performance i n poetry i s correspondingly disappointing. I t i s important to remember, however, that t h i s study was not an experimental study. I t has measured what i s , not what might be i f c e r t a i n teaching practices were adopted. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to believe that i f creative performance i n poetry wereemphasized more i n the secondary schools s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n performance i n t h i s area would not be ob-tained between the two grades. What form t h i s emphasis should take i s beyond the scope of t h i s study to.suggest. I t has at l e a s t made the need for such a programme c l e a r . S i m i l a r l y , i t was not the purpose of t h i s study to suggest methods to teachers for improving t h e i r students' appreciation of poetry. I t has simply shown that such an improvement i s possible even when no comparable improvement i n reading a b i l i t y has taken place. At the moment we can only t speculate as to what factors might have led to t h i s improvement. One possible explanation i s contained i n the observation, made i n Chapter I I I , that the grade ten students demonstrated i n t h e i r response to the Poem Comparison Test more i n t e r e s t and involvement than the grade eight students. They were c e r t a i n l y slower on the whole i n making t h e i r decisions about each poem. This observation i s i n accord with the importance attached by such writers as Purves and Squire to the engagement or involvement of the reader i n the l i t e r a r y work as an e s s e n t i a l part of appreciation. In the case of the 91 research sample the superior involvement of the grade ten students was probably due to t h e i r greater maturity, although the p o s s i b i l i t y that the choice of poems i n the test might have been more appealing to older students cannot be excluded. Nevertheless, the lesson to be learnt from t h i s ob-servation i s c l e a r : the teacher who can increase h i s students' i n t e r e s t and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e they read w i l l probably be successful i n r a i s i n g the l e v e l of t h e i r appreciation of that l i t e r a t u r e . Although a l l the measures developed f o r t h i s study could be used i n the classroom, the one most l i k e l y to be used by the English teacher i s the Poem Comparison Test. I t has the advantage of being the easiest to score, and i t provides information that he i s most l i k e l y to want to possess. The test could be used as a survey to determine the l e v e l of appreciation of poetry i n a p a r t i c u l a r class or grade. P a r a l l e l forms of the t e s t could be administered at the beginning and end of a year to determine what growth, i f any, has taken place i n appreciation of poetry. Further, by examination of student responses to i n d i v i d u a l items a teacher could determine h i s students' p a r t i c u l a r strengths or weaknesses i n appreciation of poetry at a given time. Used i n these ways, the test could become an invaluable measuring instrument not only i n research but i n the teaching of poetry i n the classroom. 92 APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF THE MEASURES OF APPRECIATION DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER II 9 3 S u m m a r y o f t h e M e a s u r e s o f A p p r e c i a t i o n d e s c r i b e d i n C h a p t e r I I N o r m a t i v e M e a s u r e s M e a s u r e s E m p l o y i n g P r o s e A u t h o r D a t e B r i e f D e s c r i p t i o n C a r r o l l 1 9 3 3 F o u r p a s s a g e s o n s a m e t o p i c b u t o f d i f f e r i n g q u a l i t y - s u b j e c t t o r a n k - o r d e r t h e p a s s a g e s . ( 1 2 i t e m s ) W i l l i a m s , W i n t e r . ^ W o o d 1 9 3 8 B a t t e r y o f f i v e t e s t s : ( 1 ) S u b j e c t t o r a n k - o r d e r f i f t e e n c o m p o s i t i o n s o f d i f f e r i n g m e r i t o n s a m e t o p i c , ( 2 ) s u b j e c t t o s o r t t w e n t y e x t r a c t s o f v a r y i n g m e r i t i n t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : l i k e d , d i s l i k e d , a n d i n d i f f e r e n t , ( 3 ) s u b j e c t t o c h o o s e b e t w e e n t w o f o r m s o f t h e s a m e s e n t e n c e , ( 3 0 i t e m s ) (4) s u b j e c t t o r a n k - o r d e r t h r e e f o r m s o f t h e s a m e s e n t e n c e , ( 5 ) s u b j e c t t o r a n k - o r d e r t h r e e s h o r t e x t r a c t s o f v a r y i n g m e r i t o n s a m e t o p i c . B u r t o n 1 9 5 2 S u b j e c t t o c h o o s e f r o m t h r e e p o s s i b l e e n d i n g s t o s h o r t s t o r y p l o t . H a r p i n 1 9 6 6 T w o s u b - t e s t s : ( 1 ) s u b j e c t t o c h o o s e b e t w e e n m a t c h e d p a i r o f e x t r a c t s f r o m n o v e l s , ( 9 i t e m s ) ( 2 ) s u b j e c t t o r a n k - o r d e r f o u r p a s s a g e s . ( 1 i t e m ) 94 Abbott, Trabue 1921 Subject to rank-order a good short poem and three i n f e r i o r versions. (13 items) Measures Employing Poetry Williams, Winter, Wood 1938 Rigg 1942 Eppel 1950 B r i t t o n 1954 Descriptive Measures Measures Employing Objective Format. Gunn 1951 Measures Employing Content Analysis; Battery of three t e s t s : (1) subject to sort twenty short extracts of varying merit into three categories: l i k e d , d i s l i k e d , and i n d i f f e r e n t , (2) subject to choose between two forms of the same couplet, (3) subject to rank-order three poetry extracts of varying merit on same topic . Subject to choose between good short extract and i n f e r i o r version. (40 items) Subject to s e l e c t missing l i n e of short extract from o r i g i n a l l i n e and two counterfeit l i n e s . (20 items) Subject to rank-order f i f t e e n short poems - eight genuine, seven c o u n t e r f e i t . Adolescent boys' ratings of nineteen poems according to nine pre-determined c r i t e r i a recorded. Richards 1929 Undergraduates' written responses to t h i r t e e n poems analyzed. 95 Squire 1964 0 r a l responses of adolescents to four short stories recorded and coded. Purves 1968 130 essays on literary topics by adolescent students in four countries coded. 96 APPENDIX B THE FULL FORMS OF THE MEASURES DEVELOPED FOR THE STUDY 9 7 R h y m e T e s t I n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e s t u d e n t s M a n y p o e t s m a k e u s e o f r h y m e i n t h e i r p o e m s , t h a t i s , t h e y u s e w o r d s t h a t h a v e t h e s a m e s o u n d . I w o u l d l i k e t o s e e h o w m a n y w o r d s y o u c a n t h i n k o f t o r h y m e w i t h a s e r i e s o f w o r d s I a m g o i n g t o g i v e y o u . F o r e x a m p l e , w h a t w o r d s c o u l d y o u t h i n k o f t h a t r h y m e w i t h t h e w o r d ' h i l l ' ? ( H e r e I w i l l w r i t e o n t h e b o a r d a n y w o r d s s u g g e s t e d b y t h e s t u d e n t s ) . I a m g o i n g t o g i v e y o u o n e m i n u t e f o r e a c h w o r d . W r i t e d o w n y o u r r h y m i n g w o r d s o n t h e s h e e t i n t h e s p a c e p r o v i d e d a n d d o n ' t w o r r y a b o u t s p e l l i n g . T h e i d e a i s t o g e t d o w n a s m a n y w o r d s a s y o u c a n t h i n k o f i n o n e m i n u t e . We w i l l t a k e a s h o r t b r e a k a f t e r e a c h w o r d , b u t o n c e w e h a v e f i n i s h e d w i t h a w o r d d o n ' t g o b a c k t o i t a n d a d d a n y m o r e r h y m e s . T h e r e a r e f i f t e e n w o r d s . A r e t h e r e a n y q u e s t i o n s ? We w i l l n o w b e g i n . T h e f i r s t w o r d i s " s t o n e , " ; W h a t w o r d s r h y m e w i t h ' s t o n e ' ? [ A f t e r s i x t y s e c o n d s ] S t o p ! D o n o t a d d a n y m o r e w o r d s . T h e s e c o n d w o r d i s " ' g r o w . ' 1 ! W h a t w o r d s r h y m e w i t h ' g r o w : " ? A n d s o o n . T h e f i f t e e n w o r d s a r e : ( 1 ) s t o n e ( 2 ) g r o w ( 6 ) o l d ( 7 ) c h e e r ( 1 1 ) d e w ( 1 2 ) m u d ( 3 ) r u d e ( 8 ) e i g h t ( 1 3 ) s p i r e ( 4 ) l u m p ( 9 ) f a c e ( 1 4 ) c l o c k ( 5 ) g r e e n ( 1 0 ) m o r e ( 1 5 ) r i c h 98 Poem Comparison Test Instructions to the students-As you probably know, poets often write more than one version of a poem before they are s a t i s f i e d with i t . Now I am going to present you with twelve short poems, each of them i n two versions, and ask you to say how good you think each version i s . You w i l l be given three copies f o r each version: (1) good (2) f a i r (3) poor There w i l l be a box for each choice l i k e t h i s : Good F a i r , Poor I would l i k e you to put a check-mark i n the box that represents your opinion of that version of the poem. You w i l l hear each version read to you once on tape, and I would l i k e you to read s i l e n t l y along as the poem i s being read. I w i l l then give you a few moments to re-read both versions and mark your opinion of each one before we go on to the next poem. Are there any questions? Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d . 99 Poem I Lost Version A Lonely and a f r a i d A l l night long on the lake Where the fog and the mist l i e heavy, The whistle of a boat Keeps on c a l l i n g through the dark Like a l i t t l e c h i l d That has l o s t i t s mother, And, not knowing what to do, Cries out for help • Good F a i r Poor Version B: Desolate and alone A l l night long on the lake Where fog t r a i l s and mist creeps, The whistle of a boat C a l l s and c r i e s unendingly, Like some l o s t c h i l d In tears and trouble Huntings the harbour's breast And the harbour's eyes. Good F a i r Poor Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d . 100 Poem II Steam Shovel Version A: Not a l l the dinosaurs are dead. I saw one l i f t i t s hard grey head And watch as I walked down the road That takes me to my school today. Inside i t s mouth i t had a load Of grass - i t looked as i f i t tasted good'. It must have noticed where I stood, Because i t sent a cloud of steam my way, Good F a i r Poor Then poked i t s neck f a r out to see, i 1 i [ i But kept on eating s o l i d l y . Version B: The dinosaurs are not a l l dead. I saw one r a i s e i t s i r o n head To watch me walking down the road Beyond our house today. Its jaws were dripping with a load Of earth and grass that i t had cropped. It must have heard me where I stopped, Good F a i r Poor Snorted white steam my way, r 1 i 1 i And stretched i t s long neck out to see, And chewed, and grinned quite amiably. Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d . 101 Poem III Erosion Version A: I t took the sea a thousand years, A thousand years to trace The granite features of t h i s c l i f f , In crag and scarp and base. It took the sea an hour one night, An hour of storm to place Good F a i r Poor The sculpture of these granite seams | F I 1 Upon a woman's face. Version B: I t took the sea so many years So many years to trace The marks you see upon t h i s c l i f f , E s p e c i a l l y at the base. It only took an hour one night One stormy hour to place „ , „ . • „ „ , j J C i I 1 * Good Faxr Poor Those dreadful marks you see so p l a i n ^ Upon that woman's face. Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d . 102 Poem IV Travel Version A: I should r e a l l y love to go To where magic orchards grow; To where, under a deep blue sky, Mysterious islands calmly l i e , Where, observed by curious goats, Lonely castaways b u i l d t h e i r boats; Where i n sunshine a l l l a i d out, Wondrous c i t i e s , miles about, Are with mosque and minaret In the midst of deserts set, And merchandise from near and far Is there for sale i n the bazaar... Good F a i r Poor Version B: I should l i k e to r i s e and go Where the golden apples grow; Where below another sky Parrot Islands anchored l i e , And, watched by cockatoos and goats, Lonely Crusoes b u i l d i n g boats; Where i n sunshine reaching out Eastern c i t i e s , miles about, Are with mosque and minaret Among sandy gardens set, And the r i c h goods from near and f a r Hang for sale i n the bazaar... Good F a i r Poor Please do not turn over u n t i l to 103 Poem V This Is Just to Say Version A: I have eaten the plums that were i n the icebox and which you were probably saving f o r breakfast Forgive me they were d e l i c i o u s so sweet and so cold Good F a i r Poor This Is Just to Say Version B: I have j u s t f i n i s h e d eating the plums that you had l e f t i n the r e f r i g e r a t o r I guess You had intended to eat them l a t e r I'm sorry but they r e a l l y were d e l i c i o u s Good F a i r Poor Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d . 104 Poem VI Autumn Version A: A touch of cold i n the Autumn night I walked abroad,. And saw the ruddy moon lean over a hedge Like a red-faced farmer. I did not stop to speak, but nodded; Good F a i r Poor And round about were the w i s t f u l stars i 1 i s i With white faces l i k e town c h i l d r e n . | II J Version B: I went outside one c h i l l y Autumn night And saw the moon - i t was a glorious s i g h t . I t flamed a b r i l l i a n t red while a l l around the sky A m i l l i o n g l i t t e r i n g stars shone dimly from on high. I did not try to speak, yet deep into my heart G o o d _ a i r I f e l t a love for nature's splendour dart. Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d . 105 Poem VII Sea-Fever Version A: I must go down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky, And a l l I ask i s a t a l l ship and a star to steer her by, And the wheel's kick and the wind's song and the white s a i l ' s shaking, And a grey mist on the sea's face and a grey dawn breaking. I must go down to the seas again, f o r the c a l l of the running tide Is a wild c a l l and a clear c a l l that may not be denied; And a l l I ask i s a windy day with the white clouds f l y i n g , And the flung spray and the blown spume and the sea-gulls crying. I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy l i f e , To the g u l l ' s way and the whale's way where the wind's l i k e a whetted k n i f e ; And a l l I ask i s a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover, And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long t r i c k ' s over. Good F a i r Poor Version B: I want to go to sea once more, to the desolate sea and the sky, And a l l I want i s a good stout boat, with the stars .up there on high, And the f e e l of the wheel and the song of the wind as i t shakes among the s a i l s , And the message for me i n the look of the sea as she readies for nor'west gales. I want to go to sea once more, for the sound of the evening tide Is a powerful c a l l and one i n truth that leaves you no place to hide; And a l l I want i s a breezy day when you can see the white clouds f l y , And the spray from the ship that comes up from the dip to deafen the seagull's cry. I want to go to sea once more, as a wandering fellow might, To the lonely deck where the bu f f e t i n g wind seems to challenge you to a f i g h t ; And a l l I want i s a j o l l y t a l e from some stout-hearted mate And a f a i t h f u l crew who, a l l l o y a l and true, w i l l dare t r y with me t h e i r f a t e . Good F a i r Poor Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d . 106 Poem VIII Fueled Version A: The rocket fueled by the l a t e s t invention of the space-researchers shot into the sky And everyone was deeply impressed. On the other hand, No one even noticed When a l i t t l e seedling Made i t s way through the s o i l And popped out into the a i r Good F a i r Poor Even though i t s only f u e l was j 1 t 1 i a thought from God. by a m i l l i o n man-made wings of f i r e -the rocket tore a tunnel through the sky -and everybody cheered. Fueled only by a thought from God -the seedling urged i t s way through the thicknesses of black and as i t pierced the heavy c e i l i n g of the s o i l -and launched i t s e l f up into outer space - Good F a i r Poor no I | I f one even clapped. Version B: Fueled Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d . 107 Poem IX Prelude No. 1 Version A: The winter evening s e t t l e s down With smells of steaks i n passageways. Six o'clock The burnt-out ends of smoky days. And now a gusty shower wraps The grimy scraps Of withered leaves about h i s feet And newspapers from vacant l o t s ; The showers beat On broken blinds and chimney pots. And at the corner of the stre e t A lonely cab-horse steams and stamps. And then t h e . l i g h t i n g of the lamps. Good • Pair Poor Version B: As the winter evening closes i n With smells of food i n passageways People relax a f t e r t h e i r hard days. If you go out, around your feet Wrap newspapers from vacant l o t s , And when i t rains you hear i t s beat On roofs and bl i n d s and chimney-pots. Down at the corner of the street Just l i s t e n to the cab-horse stamp As i t awaits the l i g h t i n g of the lamp, Good F a i r Poor Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d . 108 Poem X Kansas Boy Version A: A Kansas boy who'd never seen the sea Walked through the grasses swaying at h i s knee As though he were a s a i l o r , a l l on f i r e To see the waves around him leap s t i l l higher. He scanned the ocean broad and followed ships, Tasting the watery spray upon h i s l i p s , For i n h i s bones he f e l t the eerie ghost Of one who'd s a i l e d a stormy English coast. Across the f i e l d s he heard h i s school-mates crying -He saw ju s t crows but dreamt of seagulls f l y i n g . Good F a i r Poor Version B: This Kansas boy who never saw the sea Walks through the young corn r i p p l i n g at h i s knee As s a i l o r s walk; and when the grain grows higher Watches the dark waves leap with greener f i r e Than ever oceans hold. He follows ships, Tasting the b i t t e r spray upon h i s l i p s , For i n h i s blood u p - s t i r s the s a l t y ghost Of one who s a i l e d a storm-bound English coast. Across wide f i e l d s he hears the sea-winds crying Shouts at the crows - and dreams of white g u l l s f l y i n g . Good F a i r Poor Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d . 109 Poem X I V e r s i o n A: The dawn; t h e b i r d s ' t u m u l t u o u s clamour grows as t h e l i g h t g r a d u a l l y makes more d i s t i n c t t h e r o c k s , t h e t r e e s , p i c k i n g out each from among t h e g r e y . The clamour grows and n o i s e s m i n g l e -of w a t e r s l a p p i n g a l o n g the r o c k s -a l l t h e sounds of t h e dawn, the e a r l y m o r n i n g , a l l the e a r l y sounds. And more d i s t i n c t t h e r o c k s , the t r e e s , and b r i g h t e r now the e a r l y l i g h t i n g -when s u d d e n l y a l l t h e s e sound cease - Good F a i r P o o r a s t r a n g e s i l e n c e i 1 i 1 and t h e n t h e sun. II V e r s i o n B: S u n r i s e ; t h e b i r d s b e g i n t o r a i s e t h e i r v o i c e s as t h e l i g h t c r e e p s o v e r r o c k s and t r e e s making each v i s i b l e a g a i n s t t h e s k y . The n o i s e s grow and g e n t l y m i n g l e i n t h e e a r l y l i g h t ; t h e w a t e r s l a p s a g a i n s t t h e r o c k s ; t h e w i n d s i g h s i n t h e t r e e s . I t ' s g r o w i n g b r i g h t e r now, the r o c k s , t h e t r e e s a r e more d i s t i n c t ; s u d d e n l y a l l i s q u i e t , and t h e n as i f a t a s i g n a l , _ Good F a i r P o o r the sun a p p e a r s ! -j j i r i 110 Poem XII The Dead Crab Version A: I t had a good thick s h e l l upon i t s back That even the worst storm could not crack; And at i t s edge j u s t poking out Were small back eyes that stared about: Beneath, the powerful cote-armurel Gave i t s soft underside some power; While a l l eight legs with clever j oints Ended i n razor-sharp points. Its claws i t always held outside. I t ' s obvious t h i s creature died Quite calmly, not the l e a s t alarmed By f e a r , and not by any danger harmed; Because i t ' s very p l a i n to see A crab's a perfect armoury.2 armour "a place where weapons are kept Good F a i r Poor Version B: A rosy s h i e l d upon i t s back That not the hardest storm could crack, From whose sharp edge projected out Black pin-point eyes st a r i n g about: Beneath, the w e l l - k n i t cote-armure That gave to i t s weak b e l l y power; The clustered legs with plated j o i n t s That ended i n s t i l e t t o ^ points; The claws l i k e mouths i t held outside; I cannot think t h i s creature died By storm or f i s h or sea-fowl harmed, Walking the sea so heavily armed; Or does i t make for death to be Oneself a l i v i n g armoury? a long, dagger t h i n Good F a i r Poor I l l Poem Comparison Test: Key and L i s t of Authors The following l i s t indicates which of the two versions i s the o r i g i n a l poem:; Poem Version Poem Version 1 B 7 A 2 B 8 B 3 A 9 A 4 B 10 B 5 A 11 A 6 A 12 B L i s t of T i t l e s and Authors Poem T i t l e Author 1 Lost C a r l Sandburg 2 Steam Shovel Charles Malam 3 Erosion E.J. P r a t t 4 Travel Robert Louis Stevenson 5 This Is Just To Say William Carlos Williams 6 Autumn T.E. Hulme 7 Sea-Fever John Masefield 8 Fueled Marie Hans 9 Prelude No. I T.S. E l i o t 10 Kansas Boy Ruth L e c h l i t n e r 11 The Dawn; The Birds' W.W.E. Ross 12 The Dead Crab Andrew Young 112 , Rhythm Test Instructions to the students One c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a l o t of poetry i s i t s rhythm, that i s the kind of beat or stress that you f i n d i n each l i n e . There are many d i f f e r -ent rhythms, and I would l i k e to see i f you could imitate some by f i n i s h i n g a l i n e or adding a l i n e of your own as the case may be. You don't have to worry about making your l i n e s rhyme. You can make them rhyme or not rhyme, j u s t as you l i k e . For example; i f you were asked to complete the missing l i n e i n these l i n e s : A spider danced a cosy j i g Upon a f r a i l trapeze, And from a f a r - o f f clover f i e l d you might put: "there came a pleasant breeze" or "I heard a t i n k l i n g stream" or any other l i n e that you think f i t s the rhythm. It' s probably a good idea to read the l i n e s you are given c a r e f u l l y f i r s t of a l l to make sure that you have got t h e i r rhythm f i r m l y i n your head. Even exaggerate the rhythm i n your reading i f you l i k e . In the example.we have j u s t looked at the rhythm would go something l i k e t h i s : (/ = a stressed s y l l a b l e ; u"= an unstressed s y l l a b l e ) A1 s l i d e r danced a ^osy j i g on a f ^ a i l trapeze And f^om a f ^ r - o f f clover f i e l d . . . So, as you can hear, "There came a pleasant breeze" and "I h^ard a t/nkling stream" both f i t the rhythm. 113 On the following pages you w i l l f i n d f i f t e e n items f o r you to work on. You w i l l be able to work at your own speed, and I w i l l t r y to make sure that everyone gets time to f i n i s h . Are there any questions? Remember, i t i s n ' t so important to worry about the sense of your l i n e as i t i s to t r y to get the rhythm to sound r i g h t . Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d to do so. 114 Now see i f you can do these: (1) By day the bat i s cousin to the mouse He l i k e s '  (2) He f i d d l e d north an' he f i d d l e d south, He f i d d l e d ' (3) Where i n jungles, near and f a r , Man-devouring t i g e r s are, Lying close and giving ear (4) Then Robin made haste to the s h e r i f f to ask And he skipped and leapt along the streets And capered high i n the a i r . (5) She l e f t the web, she l e f t the loom She made three paces through the room She saw \ She saw the helmet and the plume. (6) How pure, how b e a u t i f u l , how f i n e Do teeth  No f l u t i s t f l u t e s , no dancer t w i r l s , But comes equipped with matching pearls. (7) When everyone else i s ready to go out, The cat ' He's not where he's been. Cats sleep f a t and walk t h i n . 115 (8) It's the sun l i k e watermelon, And the sidewalks o v e r l a i d With  Like a j a r of marmalade. (9) We were taken from the ore-bed and the mine, We were melted i n the furnace and the p i t We were cast and wrought_ We were cut and f i l e d , and tooled and gauged to f i t . (10) Rats! They fought the dogs and k i l l e d the cats, And b i t the babies i n the cradles, And And l i c k e d the soup from the cook's own l a d l e s . (11) We l i s t e n e d ; but we only heard That starved upon i t s perch; And, l i s t e n i n g s t i l l , without a word We set about our hopeless search. (12) Count t h i s among my h e a r t - f e l t wishes To hear a f i s h t a l e t o l d by f i s h e s And ' The honour of a fellow trout. 116 (13) She twisted her hand behind her; but a l l the knots held good'. She writhed her hand t i l l her fingers  (14) I looked f o r him behind an i s l e of trees; I l i s t e n e d ' ' (15) His proper name was Peter Sweet But he was known as Keel-haul Pete; His sense of humour was so grim, Fresh corpses 117 7 Imagery Test Instructions to the students This test i s designed to see how good you are at creating images. What i s an image? Well, whenever we notice i n t e r e s t i n g or unusual ways i n which two d i f f e r e n t things are a l i k e , we have created an image. For example, an airplane and a b i r d are two d i f f e r e n t things but most of us can see ways i n which they are a l i k e . We could express the idea i n t h i s way: An airplane i s l i k e a b i r d because they both have wings and f l y through the a i r . Section I Now, I am going to give you various objects, and ask you to create an image out of each one by comparing i t to something e l s e . You may make your images as i n t e r e s t i n g or unusual as you l i k e but remember to say why you think the two are a l i k e . Example: An airplane i s l i k e ... a b i r d because ... they both have wings and f l y through the a i r . (1) A s a i l b o a t i s l i k e '  because (2) An erupting volcano i s l i k e ' '  because ' ' ' (3) A h i g h - r i s e aparatment i s l i k e  because ' '  (4) A c r o c o d i l e i s l i k e ' ' ' because "  (5) A shoelace i s l i k e because 118 Section II In t h i s section I would l i k e to see how many d i f f e r e n t things one p a r t i c u l a r thing can remind you of. For example, i f you were asked what a f u l l moon reminded you of you might say: a b a l l , a gold coin, a f l a s h l i g h t , a wheel and so on. Now see how many different,; things each of the following things reminds you of. You don't have to give reasons, j u s t get down as many ideas as you can. Example: a f u l l moon reminds me of: a b a l l - a gold coin - a f l a s h l i g h t -a wheel -(1) an iceberg reminds me of: (2) drumbeats remind me of: (3) f a l l i n g leaves remind me of: r (4) a s n a i l - s h e l l reminds me of: (5) a high bridge reminds me of: Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d to. 119 Section I II We often use images i n our conversation or i n our w r i t i n g to make something we are describing c l e a r e r or more v i v i d . Two of the commonest kinds of image are similes and metaphors. A simile makes a comparison between whatever you are describing and something else by using the words ' l i k e ' or 'as'. For example, you might say: (1) The birds chirping at dawn were l i k e a group of musicians tuning up. or (2) Her cheeks were as red as_ apples. A metaphor, on the other hand, states that whatever you are describing a c t u a l l y i s what you want to compare i t to. Using the same examples, you might say: (1) The birds chirping at dawn were a group of musicians tuning up. i or (2) Her cheeks were red apples. Let's t r y an example. What could we compare an empty house to, using a simile? Now a metaphor? Now I would l i k e you to t r y and complete each of the f i v e sentences on the next page with ei t h e r a s i m i l e or a metaphor. I t doesn't matter which you use, but t r y to make your comparisons as i n t e r e s t i n g or as s t r i k i n g as you can. Are there any questions? Please do not turn over u n t i l t o l d to. 120 Now try these: (1) The stormy sea was (2) The young children, playing i n the garden, were (3) The f o r e s t - f i r e was (4) The excited crowd was (5) The trees, standing out against the evening sky, were 121 Questionnaire to teachers on students involved i n the tests I am going to ask you to rate each of your students on various forms of behaviour that might be re l a t e d to appreciation. Please f e e l f r ee to use whatever c r i t e r i a you consider relevant i n answering the questions. Student's name: Please c i r c l e the appropriate response. (1) How thoroughly does he/she do assignments on l i t e r a t u r e ? very quite not very not at a l l (2) How frequently does he/she ask questions about l i t e r a t u r e ? very quite not very not at a l l (3) How frequently does he/she volunteer opinions about l i t e r a t u r e ? very quite not very not at a l l (4) What breadth of reading do comments made by him/her reveal? very much quite a l o t not very much very l i t t l e (5) How much open-mindedness do comments made by him/her reveal? very much quite a l o t not very much very l i t t l e (6) How w e l l does he/she read prose, poetry or drama o r a l l y ? very w e l l quite w e l l not very w e l l very poorly (7) How much o r i g i n a l i t y does he/she show i n written work? very much quite a l o t not very much very l i t t l e (8) How much o r i g i n a l i t y does he/she show i n o r a l work? very much quite a l o t not very much very l i t t l e 122 APPENDIX C INFORMATION BASED ON PARTIAL DATA A D I N G I M A G E R Y T A B L E 11 C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X : T O T A L S C O R E S AND S U B - S C O R E S ( P A R T I A L D A T A ) * n=98-112 P O E M S E X G RADE RHYME COMP R H Y T H M R E A D I N G T E S T I I I I I I TOTAl I IMAGERY T E S T I I I I I T O T H T E A C H E R R A T I N G S E X - . 02 34 16 29 16 00 05 06 11 14 07 14 18 GRADE 08 31 20 20 16 03 03 16 02 32 19 25 RHYME 25 69 61 64 65 70 48 53 50 65 55 P O E M COMP 30 23 32 25 29 23 -21 30 31 15 R H Y T H M 37 45 49 49 48 38 59 61 36 / I 64 • 66 80 31 39 39 49 51 ) T I 81 92 32 37 56 55 52 1 111 95 34 41 62 61 55 ( T O T A L 36 43 61 62 58 / I 46 49 76 35 I 1 1 27 84 40 ] 1 1 1 70 35 ( T O T A L 48 T E A C H E R R A T I N G *decimal point omitted 124 TABLE 12 NUMBER OF SIMULTANEOUS OBSERVATIONS* POEM TEACHER RHYME COMP RHYTHM READING IMAGERY RATING 104 101 98 105 104 105 101 109 108 101 108 107 103 103 111 *decimal point omitted RHYME TEST POEM COMP. TEST RHYTHM TEST READING TEST IMAGERY TEST TEACHER RATING 1 2 5 S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y A b b o t t , A . a n d T r a b u e , M . R . " A M e a s u r e o f A b i l i t y t o J u d g e P o e t r y . " T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e R e c o r d 2 2 ( 1 9 2 1 ) : 1 0 1 - 1 2 6 . B e a r d s l e y , M o n r o e C . A e s t h e t i c s - P r o b l e m s i n t h e P h i l o s o p h y o f C r i t i c i s m . N e w Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , B r a c e a n d C o . , 1 9 5 8 . B l a c k , M a x . " S o m e Q u e s t i o n s A b o u t E m o t i v e M e a n i n g . " T h e P h i l o s o p h i c a l  R e v i e w , 5 7 ( 1 9 4 8 ) : 1 1 1 - 1 2 3 . B l o o m , B e n j a m i n S . * H a s t i n g s , J . T h o m a s * , a n d M a d a u s , G e o r g e F . , e d . H a n d b o o k o n F o r m a t i v e a n d S u m m a t i v e E v a l u a t i o n o f S t u d e n t L e a r n i n g . N e w Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l I n c . , 1 9 7 1 . B r i t t o n , J . N . " E v i d e n c e o f I m p r o v e m e n t i n P o e t i c J u d g m e n t . " " ' B r i t i s h  J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y 4 5 ( 1 9 5 4 ) : 1 9 6 - 2 0 8 . B u r t o n , D w i g h t L . " T h e R e l a t i o n s h i p o f L i t e r a r y A p p r e c i a t i o n t o C e r t a i n M e a s u r a b l e F a c t o r s . " J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y 4 3 ( 1 9 5 2 ) , p p . 4 3 6 - 4 3 9 . C a m p b e l l , D o n a l d T . , a n d S t a n l e y , J u l i a n C . E x p e r i m e n t a l a n d Q u a s i - E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n s f o r R e s e a r c h . C h i c a g o : R a n d M c N a l l y a n d C o . , 1 9 6 6 . C a r r o l l , H . A . " A M e t h o d o f M e a s u r i n g P r o s e A p p r e c i a t i o n . " E n g l i s h J o u r n a l 2 2 ( 1 9 3 3 ) : 1 8 4 - 1 8 9 . C h a r l e s w o r t h , R o b e r t a , e d . T h e S e c o n d C e n t u r y A n t h o l o g i e s o f V e r s e : B o o k I . T o r o n t o : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 6 9 . C h o p p i n , B . H . " C a n L i t e r a r y A p p r e c i a t i o n B e M e a s u r e d O b j e c t i v e l y ? " I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e v i e w o f E d u c a t i o n 1 5 ( 1 9 6 9 ) : 2 4 1 - 2 4 7 . . C o o p e r , C R . " M e a s u r i n g a p p r e c i a t i o n o f l i t e r a t u r e : a r e v i e w o f a t t e m p t s . " R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h 5 ( S p r i n g 1 9 7 1 ) : 5 - 2 3 . D o v e r , K . P h y l l i s , e d . P o e t r y - A n A n t h o l o g y f o r H i g h S c h o o l s . T o r o n t o : H o l t , R i n e h a r t a n d W i n s t o n o f C a n a d a L t d . , 1 9 6 5 . D u d e k , L o u i s , e d . P o e t r y o f O u r T i m e . T o r o n t o : T h e M a c m i l l a n C o m p a n y o f C a n a d a L t d . , 1 9 6 6 . D u n n i n g , S t e p h e n ; L u e d e r s , E d w a r d ; a n d S m i t h , H u g h , e d . R e f l e c t i o n s / . on -a G i f t o f W a t e r m e l o n P i c k l e . . . a n d o t h e r m o d e r n v e r s e . T o r o n t o : G a g e E d u c a t i o n a l P u b l i s h i n g L t d . f o r S c o t t , F o r e s m a n a n d C o m p a n y , 1 9 6 6 . 1 2 6 Early, Margaret. "Stages of Growth i n L i t e r a r y Appreciation." English  Journal 4 9 (March 1 9 6 0 ) : 1 6 1 - 1 6 7 . Eppel, E.M. "A new test of poetry d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . " B r i t i s h Journal of  Educational Psychology 2 0 ( 1 9 5 0 ) : 1 1 1 - 1 1 6 . Eysenck, H.J. "Some Factors i n the Appreciation of Poetry, and t h e i r Relation to Temperamental Q u a l i t i e s . " Character arid Personality 9 ( 1 9 4 0 - 4 1 ) : 1 6 0 - 1 6 7 . Forehand, G.A. "Problems of measuring response to l i t e r a t u r e . " Clearing House 4 0 ( 1 9 6 6 ) : 3 6 9 - 3 7 5 . Fox, Charles. "The Method of Testing L i t e r a r y Appreciation." B r i t i s h Journal  of Psychology 1 9 ( 1 9 3 8 ) 2 - 1 2 . Gates, Arthur I., and MacGinitie, Walter H. Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, Survey E, Form 2 M. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia Uni v e r s i t y , 1 9 6 5 . Gunn, Douglas G. "Factors i n the Appreciation of Poetry." B r i t i s h Journal  of Educational Psychology 2 1 ( 1 9 5 1 ) : 9 6 - 1 0 4 . Harpin, W.S. "The Appreciation of Prose." Educational Review 1 9 ( 1 9 6 6 ) : 1 3 - 2 2 . Hook, J.N. "The T r i - U n i v e r s i t y BOE Project: A Progress Report." In On Writing Behavioural Objectives for English, pp. 7 5 - 8 6 . Edited by John Maxwell, and Anthony Tovatt. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : National Council of Teachers of English, 1 9 7 0 . Hungerland, Isabel C. Poetic Discourse. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 5 8 . Iowa Tests of Educational Development. A b i l i t y to Iriterpret L i t e r a r y M a t e r i a l s . Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1 9 7 0 . Kaplan, Abraham. " R e f e r e n t i a l Meaning i n the A r t s . " Journal of Aesthetics  and Art C r i t i c i s m 1 2 (June 1 9 5 4 ) : 4 5 7 - 4 7 4 . Loban, Walter. "Evaluating Growth i n the Study of L i t e r a t u r e . " English  Journal 3 7 ( 1 9 4 8 ) : 2 7 7 - 2 8 3 . McColly, William,and Remstad,'lRobert. "Composition Rating Scales f o r General Merit: An Experimental Evaluation." Jourrial of Educational  Research 5 9 (October, 1 9 6 5 ) : 5 5 - 5 6 . National Assessment of Educational Progress. L i t e r a t u r e Objectives. Ann Arbor: Michigan, 1 9 7 0 . Pooley, R.C. "Measuring the Appreciation of L i t e r a t u r e . " English Journal 2 4 ( 1 9 3 5 ) : 6 2 7 - 6 3 3 . 127 Purves, Alan C. The Elements of Writing about a L i t e r a r y Work: A Study of  Response to L i t e r a t u r e . Champaign, I l l i n o i s : National Council of Teachers of English, 1968. Purves, Alan C. "Evaluation of Learning i n L i t e r a t u r e . " In Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning, pp. 702-762. Edited by Benjamin S. Bloom, J . Thomas Hastings, and George F. Madaus. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1971. Richards, I.A. P r a c t i c a l C r i t i c i s m . New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1929. Rigg, Melvin G. The Rigg Poetry Judgment Test. Iowa C i t y : Bureau of Educational Research and Service, State U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa, 1942. R u s s e l l , David H. "Some Research on the Impact of Reading." English  Journal 47 (Oct. 1958) 398-413. Shapiro, P h y l l i s P. An Investigation of Two Methods of Teaching Poetry to  Children (Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ) . Boston: Boston University School of Education, 1969. Smith, E.R., and T y l e r , R.W. Appraising and Recording Student Progress. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1942. Squire, James R. The Responses of Adolescents while Reading Four Short S t o r i e s . Champaign, I l l i n o i s : National Council of Teachers of English, 1964. Stein, Leo. Appreciation: P a i n t i n g , Poetry and Prose. New York: Crown Publishers, 1947. Torrance, Paul E. "Creative Thinking Through the Language A r t s . " In Readings i n Human Learning, pp.436-442. Edited by Lester D. and A l i c e Crow. New York: David McKay Company, 1964. Walter, Nina W i l l i s . Let Them Write Poetry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Wellek, Rene. Theory of L i t e r a t u r e . New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1956. White, Verna, and Enochs, J.B. "Testing the Reading and Interpretation of L i t e r a t u r e . " English Journal 33 (1944):171-177. Williams, E.D.;' Winter,L.; and Woods, J.M. "Tests of L i t e r a r y Appreciation." B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology 8 (1938):265-283. 

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.831.1-0055669/manifest

Comment

Related Items