UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A comparative study of the responses made by grade 11 Vancouver students to Canadian and New Zealand… Ross, Harry Campbell 1975

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A2 R06.pdf [ 12.62MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055681.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055681-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055681-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055681-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055681-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055681-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055681-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055681-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055681.ris

Full Text

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE RESPONSES MADE BY GRADE 11 VANCOUVER STUDENTS TO CANADIAN AND NEW ZEALAND POEMS by-Harry Campbell Ross B.A., University of Canterbury (N.Z.), 1967 B.A.(Hons.), V i c t o r i a University (N.Z.), 1968 M.Ed., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I972 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE Doctor of Education i n the Faculty of Education and Department of English, Faculty of Arts We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to the required s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 1975 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 C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e 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 t u d y . 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 p u r p o s e s 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 that 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 t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i i A b s t r a c t T h i s s t u d y was a response t o the c u r r e n t movement t o i n t r o d u c e more Canadian c o n t e n t i n t o the l i t e r a t u r e c u r r i -culum o f Canadian s c h o o l s . I t examined the assumptions b e h i n d the movement by a s k i n g t h r e e main q u e s t i o n s : (1) To what e x t e n t a r e Vancouver s t u d e n t s a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e Canadian poems? (2) Do Vancouver s t u d e n t s r e s p o n d t o Canadian poems i n a way t h a t i s measurably d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r r e s ponse t o o t h e r poems? (3) Do any such d i f f e r e n c e s i n response depend upon i n f o r m a t i o n e x t r i n s i c t o t h e p o e m s — s u c h as t h a t p r o v i d e d i n the l a b e l "A Canadian Poem"—and thus d e r i v e from a t t i t u d e s e s t a b l i s h e d p r i o r t o the r e a d i n g o f a p a r t i c u l a r poem r a t h e r t h a n , o r as w e l l a s , from an e n c o u n t e r w i t h t h e poem i t s e l f ? These q u e s t i o n s were shown t o r e l a t e t o i m p o r t a n t g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s about s t u d e n t response t o l i t e r a t u r e , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e b e a r i n g upon t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a l i t e r a r y work and t h e w o r l d known t o t h e r e a d e r . The d e s i g n ( a f u l l y c r o s s e d 2 x 2 " f a c t o r i a l " w i t h 12 r e p l i c a t i o n s ) p r o v i d e d t h a t t w e n t y - f o u r Vancouver grade e l e v e n c l a s s e s l i s t e n t o t a p e d r e c o r d i n g s o f a p a i r o f unfam-i l i a r poems and, c o n c u r r e n t l y , r e a d them p r i v a t e l y . The s t u d e n t s were t h e n asked t o respond t o t h e poems f r e e l y , i n w r i t i n g - . There were t w e l v e poem p a i r s , each p a i r c o n s i s t i n g o f one Canadian poem and one New Z e a l a n d poem. A l l poems i i i r e p r e s e n t e d l a n d s c a p e s . Each p a i r was p r e s e n t e d t o two d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s ( i n r e v e r s e d o r d e r t o c o u n t e r o r d e r e f f e c t s ) . The Canadian poem s e t was r e f i n e d by s a m p l i n g h a l f from B r i t i s h Columbia and h a l f from o t h e r Canadian r e g i o n s . S e p a r a t e a n a l y -s i s was made o f res p o n s e s t o each poem sub-group. Each c l a s s was d i v i d e d , randomly, i n two. The Canadian poem i n the p a i r t h a t was g i v e n t o one c l a s s sub-group was l a b e l l e d as Canadian. The New Z e a l a n d poem i n t h e same p a i r was l a b e l l e d as Non-Canadian. The same Canadian and New Z e a l a n d poems g i v e n t o t h e o t h e r c l a s s sub-group were not so l a b e l l e d . ^ ~y The r e s p o n s e s were s u b j e c t e d t o c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s by a scheme d e s i g n e d f o r t h e s t u d y . I t s r e l i a b i l i t y by p e r c e n t a g e o v e r l a p was 9 1 . 5 $ . A n a l y s i s was d e s c r i p t i v e , w i t h t h e C h i -Square s t a t i s t i c a s s i s t i n g d e s c r i p t i o n . A number o f s u p p o r t i n g i n s t r u m e n t s were employed t o make p o s s i b l e v a r i o u s f i n e r com-p a r i s o n s and t o y i e l d d a t a f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . Of t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s , t h e f i r s t and second were answered n e g a t i v e l y : l i t t l e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y r e c o g n i t i o n and l i t t l e r e s ponse d i f f e r e n c e were d e t e c t e d . The t h i r d q u e s t i o n was answered p o s i t i v e l y : t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e e v i d e n c e t h a t s t u d e n t s , when the y knew t h e o r i g i n s o f t h e Canadian poems, f a v o u r e d t h o s e poems i n a v a r i e t y o f response dimensions ( s u c h as E v a l u a t i o n , Comprehension, V i s u a l i s a t i o n , and I n v o l v e m e n t ) . R e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s d i d e x i s t , t h e B r i t i s h Columbia poems b e i n g l e s s f a v o u r e d t h a n t h e o t h e r Canadian poems. i v The attempt t o e s t a b l i s h a w o r k i n g base f o r ongoing e x p l o r a t i o n was s u c c e s s f u l . S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and/or i m p o r t a n t f i n d i n g s emerged i n s e v e r a l a r e a s . Some were: t h e a d j e c t i v a l p a i r s s t u d e n t s used i n c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e i r r e s p o n s e s t o t h e poems; s t a t e d p r e f e r e n c e s between poems; t h e e f f e c t s on response when t h e r e i s s t r o n g " t r a n s f e r " between t h e poem and what i s f a m i l i a r t o t h e s t u d e n t ; and t h e s t u d e n t s ' d e s i r e f o r more Canadian l i t e r a t u r e i n t h e i r s c h o o l s . The s t u d y c o n c l u d e d w i t h a statement o f i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c u r r i c u l u m p l a n n i n g and t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g y , and some sug-g e s t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND THE CHOSEN APPROACH The Problem Canadian Content f o r t h e Canadian L i t e r a t u r e C u r r i c u l u m The Claims 1 Statement of t h e Problem 4 The Q u e s t i o n s i n Wider Focus Res e a r c h i n t o L i t e r a r y Response Some C u r r e n t P r e o c c u p a t i o n s and P r o g r e s s . . . 6 P r e o c c u p a t i o n s and F i n d i n g s B e a r i n g More C l o s e l y Upon t h e Q u e s t i o n s A l r e a d y R a i s e d A c c u l t u r a t i o n 1 0 T r a n s f e r 1 1 P r i o r A t t i t u d e s 1 5 C u l t u r a l Q u e s t i o n s and L i t e r a r y Response. . . . 1 7 The Need f o r B e t t e r M e t h o d o l o g i e s 18 The Chosen Approach The Q u e s t i o n s Narrowed 2 2 The D e s i g n 2 3 CHAPTER I I FREE RESPONSE AND CONTENT ANALYSIS W r i t t e n , F r e e , Immediate Response . . . . 2 7 A n a l y z i n g Response: Content A n a l y s i s Content A n a l y s i s i n G e n e r a l Content A n a l y s i s D e f i n e d 3 9 v i The Reasons f o r Choosing Content Analysis . . . 4-0 Problems with Content Analysis 4-1 C r i t e r i a f o r Developing a Content Analysis Scheme 4-2 The Scheme Used i n This Study The Need 4-3 The C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Unit: Its Physical Parameters 4-3 The Number of C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Units 44 The Meaning of Each Category. 4-5 What the Categories Represent 5^ Coding Details 54-Finer Scoring Details 56 The V a l i d i t y of the Scheme 57 The R e l i a b i l i t y of the Scheme 6l CHAPTER III EXPERIMENTAL PRACTICES AND DECISIONS D e f i n i t i o n of Key Terms 63 The Independent Variables Poem Origins The English-Canada/New Zealand Comparison . . . 66 The Rest-of-Canada/British Columbia Comparison. 67 Knowledge of Origins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 The L i t e r a r y Material L i t e r a t u r e 68 Poetry Poem type Rural Landscape Poetry 69 v i i Descriptive Landscape . 71 Simple Content 71 Simple Form ., 7 2 Period From Which Drawn 73 The Number of Poems 74-The Need to Pair Poems 74 Matching the Poems 75 Sampling Procedures (poetry) 76 The Student Sample The Schools 78 The Grade Level 78 Sample Size 80 Intact Groups 81 Individual Students 81 Taking the Experiment into the Schools Arrangements with Class Teachers 81 Classroom Procedures Overall Time Scheme 82 Instrument Format 82 Introduction to Students. 83 Presentation of Poems 84 Elimination of Teacher Variables 86 The Readings 86 Free Response 86 Student F a m i l i a r i t y With, and Knowledge of Poems 87 Student Origins 88 v i i i Supporting Instruments and Procedures "What Do You Know of These Poems?" 89 "Places You Have Lived" 89 "Hunches" 90 "Your Opinions" 90 "Sub Groups". 91 "Within and Across" 91 Assumptions and Limitations 92 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS S t a t i s t i c a l Note 101 Basic Data 102 Sp e c i f i c Findings (1): Recognition (Research Question l ) . . 108 (2): Free Response (Research Question 2). . 120 (3A): Free Response (Research Question 3)• • 125 (3B): Free Response (Research Question 3)- • 134 (2), (3A), (3B): Free Response General Discussion 140 Overall Conclusions The Research Questions 14-3 (4) Free Responses S i g n i f i c a n t A d j e c t i v a l s . . 143 (5) Free Response: Transfer . . 148 CHAPTER V SOME IMPLICATIONS AND SOME FUTURE RESEARCH 154. ix NOTES 174 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . 207 APPENDICES \ I The Poetry Sample A Some Poem Pairs 229 B The IEA Matching Problem 242 II The Testing Battery: Samples of a l l Forms for School Use A Introduction to Teachers 2 4 4 B Introduction to Students 250 (Booklet I) C Instruction Sheet 252 D Poem Pairs , 2 5 3 E Free Response Blanks 2 5 4 (Booklet II) F Instruction Sheet 255 G "How Much Do You Like the Poems?" 256 H "What Do You Know of These Poems?" 257 I "Places You Have Lived" 258 J "Hunches" 258 K "Your Opinions" 259 III The Experimental Chronology 2 6 l IV Some Responses A Some Coded Free-Response Protocols 265 B S i g n i f i c a n t A d jectivals 271 X LIST OF TABLES I The Content Analysis Schemes Category Headings . . . 45 II Frequency Datas Denied Knowledge . . 107 III Recognition of Origins Denied and Given Knowledge. . 109 IV Recognition of Origin: Canadian and New Zealand Poems Under the RC/NZ and BC/NZ Conditions 115 V Free Response, Comparative Datas Denied Knowledge. . 121 VI Free Response, Comparative Datas Denied Knowledges The RC/NZ, BC/NZ Conditions 123 VII Free Response, Quantity of Writings Denied Knowledge 125 VLTI Free Response, Comparative Datas Denied and Given Knowledge 127 IX Free Response, Comparative Datas Denied and Given Knowledges The RC/NZ, BC/NZ Conditions 129 X Free Response, Quantity of Writings Denied and Given Knowledge 132 XI Free Response, Comparative Datas Correctly Possessed Knowledge and Incorrectly Possessed Knowledge . 136 XII Free Response, Quantity of Writings Correctly Possessed Knowledge and Incorrectly Possessed Knowledge 138 XILT S i g n i f i c a n t Adjectivals ' 146 XIV Scores (Negatives) per Post Hoc Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l 14-7 LIST OF FIGURES I The Designs Main Configuration 24 Acknowledgments For her guidance and support I wish to extend deep-f e l t appreciation to the chairman of my committee Dr. Ruth McConnell. She made i t a l l possible. I thank too, f o r t h e i r help, the committee members: Prof. P. Penner, Dr. R. Bentley, Dr. W. New, Dr. D. Stephens and Dr. R. Daniells. I am grate-f u l to Drs. D. McKie,. R. Conry, S. Foster and M. A r l i n f o r t h e i r s p e c i a l s t a t i s t i c a l and design expertise and the time they took to communicate i t . There were many others who encouraged or assisted. Some were the school administrators, teachers and students, Dr. Muriel Niemi, Prof. F. Bertram, Dr. S. Butler, Malcolm Fisher, Marie Aubertin, Linda Weisbeck and Sharon H e f l i n . I thank you a l l . To my wife, Susan, for her patience under the double burdens of typing and home-making I give loving thanks. CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND THE CHOSEN APPROACH THE PROBLEM Canadian Li t e r a t u r e f o r the Canadian Li t e r a t u r e Curriculum The Claims Over the l a s t few years there has been a growing pressure to increase the Canadian content of l i t e r a t u r e i n Canadian secondary schools. This pressure has been manifested i n at least f i f t y a r t i c l e s i n the educational and l i t e r a r y journals and i n several theses and research papers. ^~ It has been evident i n a recent dramatic increase i n the amount of Canadian l i t e r a t u r e taught i n schools and u n i v e r s i t i e s . And i t has been documented, with respect to the secondary schools, by two surveys—Crawford (1973)» Stewart (1974) —which report a strong demand from both student and teacher f o r even more Canadian content. The arguments put forward i n support of such an increase are varied and often vague, but some r a i s e important issues. The major ground upon which an increase i n Canadian content i s argued might be l a b e l l e d "acculturation,". This l a b e l shelters a v a r i e t y of arguments. The loudest and probably the weakest of these stress the more p o l i t i c a l aspects of nationalism: Canadian l i t e r a t u r e should be taught to preserve national i n t e g r i t y , e s p e c i a l l y where that i s threatened by the USA:^ i t should be taught to promote national confidence, pride, and a 4-p a t r i o t i c f a i t h i n Canada's destiny; i t should be taught to create a broader " s o c i a l " understanding and thus to strengthen national unity;^ and i t should be ta u g h t — a somewhat c i r c u l a r 6 p r o p o s i t i o n — s o that Canadian writers w i l l have an audience. These arguments place upon the l i t e r a t u r e a value that i s not central to l i t e r a r y purposes. More nearly dealing with Canadian l i t e r a t u r e as a national l i t e r a t u r e are the arguments which treat "acculturation" as an acquaintance with a Canadian "view of things," a set of Canadian " r e a l i t i e s . " ^ Those who put t h i s case propose the goal of national s e l f -understanding through l i t e r a t u r e rather than the l a t t e r ' s Q enlistment i n a q u a s i - p o l i t i c a l campaign for national unity. They usually assume unity. Sometimes there i s , indeed, r e f e r -9 ence to a geographical and h i s t o r i c a l d i v e r s i t y . But more common are generalized references to a single " d i s t i n c t people, with a common history, inhabiting a c l e a r l y defined t e r r i t o r y " the l i t e r a t u r e embodies a " c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y . . . . worthy of expression,""^ a view of the l i f e of the country treated with 12 13 inte n s i t y , "one of the clearest voices" of the nation, J a ±L record of "what the Canadian imagination has reacted to," and ( i n poetry) "the f u l l e s t and most adequate expression of Canadian thinking and l i v i n g . " J One writer mediates between unity and d i v e r s i t y : "A people that knows i t s own l i t e r a t u r e 16 knows i t s own family, however various." Proponents of acculturation as an acquaintance with 3 Canadian " r e a l i t i e s " sometimes c a l l f o r the teaching of Canadian 1 7 l i t e r a t u r e as an antidote for ignorance, ' apathy and " c u l t u r a l deprivation," sometimes to i n s t i l i n students an "awareness" 1 9 of s e l f or " s e l f image." They also point to the p o s s i b i l i t y that Canadian l i t e r a t u r e , f a r from dispensing mere "knowledge" of things Canadian, might engender a s p e c i a l kind of response i n Canadian students, o f f e r i n g a peculiar i n t e n s i t y of l i t e r a r y experience, a "sense of excitement which no other l i t e r a t u r e 20 can have," The vast majority of young readers, they claim, need help from concrete references and from r e f l e c t i o n s of t h e i r 21 own experiences and nostalgias. Students need to f e e l "I have 22 seen t h i s , I know i t , I have heard of i t i n Canada." By providing such an experience Canadian l i t e r a t u r e might increase reading comprehension and involvement, even fo s t e r i n g l i t e r a r y pursuits beyond i t s own domains. The c a l l f or an increase i n Canadian content i n v i t e s more questions than i t presents c e r t a i n t i e s . Many writers, i t i s true, point to t h e i r actual experience with students to sup-port t h e i r claims. They report greater " i n t e r e s t , " "enthusiasm," "enjoyment," " l i k i n g , " "excitement," "involvement," "responsive-ness," "spontaneity," and " l i f e i " Some also claim that students read more. But such reporting i s never highly r e l i a b l e and i t does not usually question i t s assumptions. Nor do the surveys ask fundamental questions. Further, 4 t h e i r findings are probably biased, through sampling flaws, to-wards those teachers already wanting more Canadian content i n the schools. Even Crawford, an admitted "promoter," acknow-ledges t h i s point: i f "158 teachers across Canada report t h e i r students 'i n d i f f e r e n t * [to Canadian l i t e r a t u r e ] , a staggering number of students must f e e l so." J The Crawford and Stewart 24 surveys are seriously flawed i n other ways too. The present study focused, however, on the chief shortcoming i n a l l work to date—the f a i l u r e to examine assump-t i o n s . ^ Three fundamental issues were examined. Statement of the Problem Question 1. Are Canadian students able to recognize Canadian l i t e r a t u r e as being such? The promotional writing usually assumes that such an a b i l i t y exists and i t accepts, often i m p l i c i t l y , the premise that a d i s t i n c t i v e l y Canadian l i t e r a t u r e also e x i s t s . Yet geographical (and even cultural) d e f i n i t i o n s seem to lead to 26 regional conclusions. Any c a l l f o r Canadian l i t e r a t u r e as the treatment of an experience with the land must f i n a l l y account f o r regional works. The question of recognition, then, was twofold: (a) Are Canadian students able to recognize t h e i r nation's l i t e r a t u r e ? (b) Are Canadian students able to recognize t h e i r region's l i t e r a t u r e ? 5 Question 2. Are Canadian students sensitive to Canadian l i t e r a t u r e i n a way that y i e l d s a response that i s measurably d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r response to other l i t e r a t u r e ? Those promoting Canadian l i t e r a t u r e often claim a greater q u a l i t y and i n t e n s i t y of "response" to Canadian l i t e r a -ture but offer no formal measures. Informal estimations gauging "enjoyment," or r e l a t i v e l y loose assessments of "involvement," "responsiveness," and such-like are t h e i r data. Yet i t i s possible to probe student response more f u l l y and to d i r e c t analysis towards any response patterns that might reveal, be-tween reader and work, some d i s t i n c t i v e national or regional "attitude" or .^identity. " Question 3« Are the responses of Canadian students i n f l u -enced by information e x t r i n s i c to the l i t e r a r y work — such as that provided i n the l a b e l "A Canadian Poem" — a n d thus derived from attitudes established p r i o r to the reading of a p a r t i c u l a r work rather than, or as well a s , from an encounter with the work i t s e l f ? E x t r i n s i c material has always appeared i n school lessons and anthologies: material i d e n t i f y i n g a place described i n a landscape poem or noting a poet's n a t i o n a l i t y are examples. The practice i s given prominence by the arguments of the p o l i t i c o - a c c u l t u r i s t s and by the "Canadian Studies" idea (which 6 frequently uses l i t e r a t u r e to open and develop s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l enquiries). One teacher, reported by Crawford, suggests that l a b e l l i n g can a f f e c t student attitudes: i f a module i s advertised as "Canadian content" the students expect ready i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the material and are not wholly s a t i s f i e d with Canadian authors whose work does not meet t h i s s p e c i f i c e x p e c t a t i o n. P 9 These three questions are a l l , i n varying degrees, susceptible to empirical enquiry. Before they are narrowed f o r purposes of experimental design they w i l l be examined i n a th e o r e t i c a l and empirical context wider than that provided by the a r t i c l e s dealing only with the Canadian school issue. The Questions i n Wider Focus Research into L i t e r a r y Response Some Current Preoccupations and Progress Perhaps the supreme educational j u s t i f i c a t i o n for pursuing the three questions just stated i s that they f i t within the now i n t e n s i f y i n g quest to f i n d , i n a thorough-going and objective fashion, what ac t u a l l y occurs when students interact with l i t e r a t u r e . For many years, research did not move f a r beyond documenting students' l i t e r a r y preferences or analyzing the content of the works used i n schools. For roughly the l a s t decade broader and deeper facets of students' interactions with l i t e r a r y works have been investigated. Students* i n i t i a l 7" responses, l a t e r r e f l e c t i o n s , c r i t i c a l comments, free discus-sions, and the l i k e have been given close attention. Barnes, Churley and Thompson provide one example of the techniques 29 used. y They analyzed tape-recordings of high school students f r e e l y discussing, i n small groups, a novel the students had just f i n i s h e d reading. Squire provides another example. He recorded, i n non-directive interviews, the responses of adolescent readers at d i f f e r e n t points i n t h e i r progress through a short story. He then analyzed the interview material by a content analysis scheme-^0 (which Purves l a t e r r e f i n e d and others then put to wide use^"*"). Approaches l i k e these have made i t possible to map more c l e a r l y the outlines of student response. Such work has been frequently and well reviewed. However, two l i n e s of enquiry have s p e c i a l relevance to the present study and thus merit discussion here. The Barnes team, and others, have demon-strated that students seem to benefit greatly from an immediate post-reading, free-discussion of l i t e r a r y works. The students rais e points that teachers are u n l i k e l y to anticipate and "teach" to. I f f i r s t allowed to discuss f r e e l y , the students thereby equip themselves to move from the l i m i t e d , " i l l o g i c a l , " often c i r c u l a r and inconclusive, i n i t i a l discussion to more c r i t i c a l l y sophisticated enquiries. These findings demand that teaching procedures and standards of c r i t i c a l r e s p e c t a b i l i t y i n schools be re-examined. J They suggest, f o r instance, that .8 children are usually asked to [formally] verbalize and conceptualize before they have had enough working experience to give them an " i n t e r n a l i z e d " understanding, - J . the teacher . . . may set up topics and l e v e l s of discussion which f a i l to mesh i n with what-ever responses pupils make for themselves, and then he i s l i k e l y to be puzzled why so few of them are w i l l i n g to t a l k about a book they seem to have enjoyed. Squire, Purves and t h e i r many followers have begun to show what are the various postures students commonly adopt towards d i f f e r e n t l i t e r a r y works i n d i f f e r e n t conditions. Their findings are now being brought together to assemble, with par-t i c u l a r reference to the USA, a p r o f i l e of student response i n a wide v a r i e t y of circumstances. Curriculum planning and teach-ing methodology should eventually benefit from t h i s information. In the same s p i r i t as Barnes, Purves has pointed out that: At the stage of the expanded response, the evaluator needs to look at the students' preparedness to t a l k or write about the cate-gory or categories of c r i t i c i s m intended i n the curriculum. I f , for example, the curricu-lum intends that the students s h a l l apply contextual information, the evaluator must determine whether the students possess the i n -formation and the procedures for applying i t to texts. I f the curriculum i s much less p r e s c r i p t i v e about categories, the evaluator must f i r s t determine what questions the students are seeking to answer as they read and expand t h e i r response to the texts and how well they answer the questions they have chosen to ask.„/-P l a i n l y , studies i n areas such as the two just men-tioned can t e l l us a great deal about the interests and needs of students and suggest to us what responses we might expect 37 from students. They can help us decide how to handle a given work u n t i l engagement has been f u l l y established. They can show us what sorts of v e r b a l i z a t i o n to expect and what d i s -turbances and confusions prevent f u l l e s t appreciation. They can demonstrate the effects of certain types of questions, asked at cer t a i n times, and of teaching cer t a i n c r i t i c a l terms and c r i t i c a l patterns. In these ways research into response can indicate, to some extent, the patterns of response be-haviour and development upon which teaching strategems, l e v e l s , and sequences might be b u i l t . It can help teachers b u i l d , or rebuild, the d i s t i n c t i o n s between suggestion and i n d o c t r i -nation,^^ between guidance and the destruction of i n t e r e s t . ^ Research findings also promise a better typology of l i t e r a r y works—one developed according to the response patterns 40 d i f f e r e n t works might e l i c i t . There i s a great need f o r a better knowledge of the books that w i l l match the developmental patterns of d i f f e r e n t students. As Margaret Ea r l y wonders, how can "any book s e l e c t i o n committee . . . operate without f i r s t 41 t r y i n g out the possible choices on adolescents?" Some authorities r a i s e c u l t u r a l issues i n t h i s connec-tion", expressing the need to f i n d " i n any period or from any country the l i t e r a t u r e that best conveys human and s o c i a l values 42 to a p a r t i c u l a r reader or class of readers." There i s ample evidence that teachers often f a i l to anticipate such things as children's reading i n t e r e s t s . The most recent f i n d i n g i n t h i s 10 connection i s that of the prestigious IEA study, which explored l i t e r a t u r e education i n ten countries: one of the "school variables" l e a s t related to le v e l s of student interest and capacity i n l i t e r a t u r e i s the teacher's assessment of those l e v e l s . ^ Systematic enquiry i s needed to a s s i s t the teacher. Preoccupations and Findings Bearing More Closely Upon the Questions Raised f o r Present Study The current research movements bear closely, i f gener-a l l y , upon the present study. Modern research also relates closely to the s p e c i f i c questions posed here. It emphasizes the importance, and makes possible a more sensitive measurement, of several variables contained i n the research questions. (1) Acculturation Acculturation i s no longer simply a demand made by those looking to the establishment or health of a c u l t u r a l heritage or to the health of individuals within a c u l t u r e — 4 4 though that demand i s also strongly made outside Canada. Nor i s i t merely an assertion that a unique l i t e r a r y i d e n t i t y can exist—though that too i s strongly maintained outside t h i s country. Rather, c u l t u r a l biases are being seen f o r t h e i r effects on l i t e r a r y response i t s e l f . The effects are being increasingly well-documented. We are finding out more about ethnically-influenced preferences. We know that i t i s possible to influence student values and 11 l i t e r a r y tastes by c o n t r o l l i n g , on c u l t u r a l l i n e s , the l i t e r a -ture students read. We know that t h e i r patterns of " c r i t i c a l " response are influenced by teaching practices and that such patterns are d i s t i n c t i v e to d i f f e r e n t nations. ' We know that students belonging to cultures foreign to that of the work being read can encounter immense d i f f i c u l t i e s i n comprehending and appreciating the w o r k — d i f f i c u l t i e s which are manifested i n a t t i t u d i n a l resistance as well as i n d i f f i c u l t i e s of i n t e r -c u l t u r a l "comprehension." The present study was designed with t h i s knowledge i n mind. ( 2 ) Transfer Modern research has also elevated as an issue and made more susceptible to te s t i n g the effects that r e s u l t when "transfer" can take place: when, that i s , a close l i n k exists between what i s f a m i l i a r to the student and the content of a p a r t i c u l a r l i t e r a r y work. The need for transfer has long been publi c i z e d by Louise Rosenblatt: l i k e the beginner, the adolescent reader needs to encounter l i t e r a t u r e for which he possesses emotional and expe r i e n t i a l "readiness. 1! He, too must possess the raw materials out of which to evoke i n a meaningful way the world symbol-ized on the printed page. To avoid the mere t r a n s l a t i o n from one set of words to another, that world must be f i t t e d into the context of his own understanding and i n t e r e s t s . I f the language, the setting, the theme, the central s i t u a t i o n , a l l are too a l i e n , even a "great work" w i l l f a i l . A l l doors are shut. The printed words w i l l at best conjure up only a ghost of a l i t e r a r y experience. The l i t e r a r y work must hold out some 12 l i n k with the young reader's own past and present preoccupations, emotions, anxieties, ambitions . J L Q Rosenblatt has never been alone i n her cause and i t has received recent support from such figures as Barnes, Dixon, the IEA researchers, Loban, Purves, Squire and R u s s e l l . ^ 0 Transfer may, according to the theory, take a v a r i e t y of forms. A l i n k with the f a m i l i a r can be established through the work's treatment of a geographic region f a m i l i a r to the reader, through the story's "evoking a s i t u a t i o n or attitude that the c h i l d himself has experienced,"^ through the reader's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with a character resembling him, or, more gener-a l l y , through his i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the author's "thinking and f e e l i n g . " y The l a t t e r might emerge i n material which i s et h n i c a l l y congenial to the reader or which expresses sentiments i n accordance with his own chauvinisms. Several of the possible forms of transfer are pa r t i c u -l a r l y relevant to t h i s study. Transfer to region or l o c a l i t y may foster a very sp e c i a l response. As George Bowering has written I agree with A.E. Housman, William Carlos Williams and John Dewey that one would best begin by studying the l o c a l , and. move then outward, i n terms of space and time. This would mean not just Canadian books, but B.C. (or Vancouver) books f i r s t , then Canadian books, then maybe 19th century Canadian books, then other books i n the English language, then L a t i n American and European books. I think that int e r e s t would be aroused (I remember the shock and delight I ex-perienced when I f i r s t read f i c t i o n — a n d even poetry — that was set i n a place where I had lived) when the student was able to experience 1 3 the r e s u l t s and process of a writer's (human's) coming to grips with language, by way of language, with his place, his l o c u s . ^ Crawford also t i e s t h i s theme to learning theory: Might not a study begin with a province (where f e a s i b l e ) , spread outward to a region, with the ultimate goal Canada and the world? The out-ward spread from known to unknown i s a sound teaching approach.^ Transfer may be based upon p a t r i o t i c feelings and be brought fort h by the disclosure of a poem's national o r i g i n s . Also, i f the increasing number of investigations into groups d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on ethnic background has wider reference, 55 transfer based upon l o c a l group i d e n t i t y should ex i s t . ^ Transfer may a r i s e from broader c u l t u r a l a f f i n i t i e s too. That f a m i l i a r theme of the Canadian promotion i s echoed by writers with other nations i n mind. Harding, for example, reports an opinion of the Dartmouth Seminar: " i n entering into the • v i r t u a l experience' of i n f l u e n t i a l works of l i t e r a t u r e a c h i l d i s offered a flow and r e c o i l of sympathies that accords with the culture pattern i n which he i s growing up."-5 Several studies have manipulated variables r e l a t e d to 57 transfer and shown that i t i s an active factor;-^' but what i s i t s actual r o l e i n response? A few stress i t s importance as a fundamental human need to be f u l f i l l e d for i t s own sake;-^ most point to the secondary response elements that can be reached 59 more e a s i l y , or only, i f transfer i s f i r s t made. 7 (A p a r a l l e l may exist "between the l a t t e r propositions and the set of learning theories, alluded to by Bowering and Crawford, which hold that students should meet the immediately understandable, tangible or l i t e r a l before attempting generalizations and before new material i s introduced.) The secondary response elements held to be more or less dependent upon transfer i n -clude int e r e s t , engagement and involvement, and enthusiasm fo r class discussion. Transfer i s also linked with the development of considered appreciation. The connection with inte r e s t i s most strongly esta-blished by studies showing that interest (and enjoyment) and f a m i l i a r i t y vary together. Of these studies, Rankin's examining the Newbery prize-winning novels i s highly pertinent to the present investigation: Only one of the highly popular books of f i c t i o n f o r children has i t s setting i n a foreign country: a l l but one of the less popular Newbery books of f i c t i o n have t h e i r settings i n a foreign country. That exception, the scene i n Waterless Mountain, i s l a i d among the Navaho Indians, a s e t t i n g foreign to most American children. In none of the story settings would i t be d i f f i -cult f o r the average young person to imagine himself. Even when . . . the s e t t i n g i s i n a foreign country, that locale i s not described so that i t would lead the reader to think i t "queer" or "different;"..-/^ Interest i s related to involvement. Both appear to r e l a t e to transfer through " a c c e s s i b i l i t y " and through the "vicarious experience" which depends p a r t l y upon transfer. 15' As the IEA l i t e r a t u r e committee speculated, p o s i t i v e attitudes and interest might re l a t e to "one's degree of transfer between l i t e r a r y and non l i t e r a r y e v e n t s . " ^ The connection between transfer and more considered appreciation i s traced by such figures as Barnes, Gerber, Purves and Beach, and Vine. Its pedagogical implications are best stated by Barnes. According to him, students l e f t to free discussion treat the character as i f he were a r e a l person, and ascribe hypothetical feelings and motives to him. This seems a stage of imaginative insight which may well be a necessary preliminary to more mature ways of looking at f i c t i o n a l characters . . . This i s not to argue that we should not at times encourage older pupils towards a more 'distanced* way of t a l k i n g about l i t e r a t u r e . On the contrary, we should help them towards t h i s by seeing to i t that they explore the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the simpler  forms of,empathy,('identification', perhaps) be-fore expecting them to step back from the experi-e n c e , 6 5 [ i t a l i c s mine] It i s not my purpose to argue the extent to which "transfer" should be fostered i n l i t e r a t u r e teaching. Clearly i t i s just one facet of l i t e r a r y response. But the connection with the f a m i l i a r seems s u f f i c i e n t l y important to warrant re-search attention. (3) P r i o r Attitudes A t t i t u d i n a l studies off e r other findings cl o s e l y related to the present study. Ethnically-derived attitudes, 66 f o r example, are increasingly seen as determinants of response. 16 E s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g i s the phenomenon, termed "low s e l f -image," found i n many minority groups.^ Comment on Canadian culture and p i l o t work for t h i s study both suggested that Canadian students might act quite l i k e children from minority groups when asked to respond to t h e i r own l i t e r a t u r e . P i l o t students demonstrated a low regard for Canadian l i t e r a t u r e i n general and exhibited constricted responses to the poems they received. A t t i t u d i n a l studies also demonstrate the d i f f i c u l -t i e s (noted under "acculturation") experienced by students i n c r o s s - c u l t u r a l reading s i t u a t i o n s . Their d i f f i c u l t i e s ' are at least p a r t l y a t t i t u d i n a l . The "background" material often given students to help them "enrich" t h e i r reading also raises a t t i t u d i n a l issues: attitudes can be set up, brought into focus, or a l t e r e d by providing authorial biographies, a t t r i b u t i n g national origins to a work, or merely giving the author's name. The few studies that have been made on such effects i n the more 68 a f f e c t i v e areas of response have shown them to be s i g n i f i c a n t . Attitudes, then, must be counted important response 69 variables. By "knowing the attitudes of people i t i s possible to do something about the p r e d i c t i o n and control [ i n a peda-gogical sense] of t h e i r behaviour."^ 0 For the present study, the assumption seemed reasonable that attitudes, where they existed, would influence measured response. S i m i l a r l y reasonable was the assumption that e x t r i n s i c material, l i k e national l a b e l s , would strengthen the e f f e c t of such attitudes ( i n whatever d i r e c t i o n ) . The r e s u l t s of the p i l o t studies reinforced these conclusions. Cultural Questions and L i t e r a r y Response Study into l i t e r a r y response often doubles as a study of c u l t u r a l questions. For example, the IEA and other studies have revealed that most countries now promote t h e i r native l i t e r a t u r e and influence t h e i r students' responses along cultur-71 a l l y d i s t i n c t i v e l i n e s . ' I m p l i c i t l y , such studies r a i s e questions as to the extent to which work and student respectively influence responses. As Wainer and Berg ask Could i t be that [our] c r i t e r i a emerged because of p r e v a i l i n g American c u l t u r a l attitudes i n -grained i n the students themselves or are they inherent only i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r set of s t o r i e s , a p e c u l i a r i t y of Maupassant's v i s i o n of the u n i - ' verse? . . . one could use the same sto r i e s with a subject population with d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l backgrounds.^ Other writers pursue t h i s idea with the USA and B r i t a i n i n minds many studies related to ethnic l i t e r a t u r e and the response patterns and achievements that emerge from the teaching of these l i t e r a t u r e s might well be undertaken. Not only should these studies deal with a group reading i t s own l i t e r a t u r e but with a group reading l i t e r a t u r e of other groups.^ The need i s just as great i n Canada. The present study was 74 designed to meet t h i s need.' Some researchers suggest that i n d i r e c t approaches to c u l t u r a l questions, such as through l i t e r a r y response, might y i e l d r i c h e r and more v a l i d information than do dir e c t i n s t r u -75 ments l i k e objective-type c u l t u r a l question-sets. ^ In respect of l i t e r a r y culture i t s e l f (including both works and c r i t i c i s m ) 1 8 such a mixed approach might indicate what the younger generation 76 i s l i k e l y to take from and add to the culture.' University teachers, i n p a r t i c u l a r , might value such information about t h e i r student populations. The student himself should benefit - 77 by being helped to understand his c u l t u r a l milieu.'' The immi-grant esp e c i a l l y , with his i n t r i c a t e and d i f f i c u l t adjustment problems, should benefit i f c u l t u r a l norms are better known as they relate to the material he receives i n class. The Need for Better Methodologies The Canadian studies reviewed at the beginning of t h i s chapter have been l i m i t e d by the r e l a t i v e l y s u p e r f i c i a l questions they have asked. Within these l i m i t a t i o n s they have also been flawed by methodological shortcomings. In the l a t t e r respect the studies re-affirm a more general need for experimental approaches, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the a f f e c t i v e domain. Experimental techniques o f f e r the best means by which to avoid researcher bias. They also make i t possible (by manipulating variables) to probe response more deeply than i s possible with description or survey. There i s , however, also a continued need—Hansson 79 c a l l s i t " u r g e n t " — f o r descriptive studies. The term encom-passes response or preference surveys. The l a t t e r can demon-strate "to the teachers, and to those who teach the teachers, what happens when groups of young people respond to l i t e r a t u r e " Rf) i n something l i k e "normal" conditions. They can help f i l l our need to know where our students are. The term also i n -cludes much anthropological investigation. The questions stated for the present investigation involved probing c u l t u r a l l y -influenced responses and c o l l e c t i n g questionnaire information on re l a t e d issues. Both approaches seek to discover, as the anthropologist does, what: categories . . . informants use. What are t h e i r categories and what do they mean? How i s t h e i r knowledge organized and c l a s s i f i e d ? Answering these questions i s what discovering culture i s a l l about. A h e l p f u l strategy for beginning research i s asking a grand tour question; i . e . , have an informant t e l l about the a c t i v i t i e s and people one i s interested i n . This w i l l help one f i n d out the meaning of the d i f f e r e n t parts of the c u l t u r a l s e t t i n g you are studying. Using descriptive techniques i n these f i e l d s helps f i l l the need expressed by some research leaders f o r "other modes of research than the experimental or the large-group survey. The anthropological and psycho-analytic studies provide possible guides. Experimental and descriptive techniques can work to-gether with p r o f i t . Description i s l i k e l y to be precise only when i t i s clear who and what i s being measured—at least i n the sense that the study can be re p l i c a t e d . In the l i g h t of the Canadian research already reviewed, i t i s es p e c i a l l y important that any attempt at description be accompanied by appropriate controls. Combining techniques has recently gained impetus under Qh. the p r i n c i p l e of "multiple" or "triangulated" operationalism. 2 0 . Because human behaviour i s so complex, i t cannot be adequately measured by a single term or a single dimension. Accordingly, the "most f e r t i l e search for v a l i d i t y " comes, as Webb puts i t : from a combined series of d i f f e r e n t measures, each with i t s own i d i o s y n c r a t i c weaknesses, each pointed to a single hypothesis. When a hypothesis can survive the confrontation of a series of complementary methods of tes t i n g , i t contains a degree of v a l i d i t y unattainable by one tested within the more constricted frame-work of a single method. The present study combined descriptive and experimental approaches. I t set up several d i f f e r e n t , but complementary, methods of te s t i n g . Another set of methodological, or quasi-methodological, needs i s to frame questions l i k e l y to produce results(and material) which w i l l speak f a i r l y d i r e c t l y to teachers. This means, among other things: using classroom settings where possible; asking questions that have useful outcomes fo r teaching; showing teachers that the students' responses have not been v i o l a t e d by the methods used to measure them; using more than numbers to gauge and report findings; and preserving room f o r 8 6 questions of value i n applying r e s u l t s . Too few investigators have recognized t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to help the teacher see O n the "difference i n eff e c t between [teaching] approaches." ' Better communication might promote a di s p o s i t i o n i n the schools to r e f l e c t upon, experiment with, and evaluate new (and old) approaches to l i t e r a t u r e . Such methodological needs have i n f l u -enced the shape of t h i s study. 21 Summary The three questions posed f o r study f i t within an in t e n s i f y i n g quest on the part of educational researchers to f i n d what a c t u a l l y occurs when students interact with l i t e r a t u r e . By d e t a i l i n g patterns of response "behaviour and development, t h e i r enquiry i s establishing a firmer ground upon which to b u i l d teaching stratagems and sequences. This new research also relates more s p e c i f i c a l l y to the three questions raised i n the present study: c u l t u r a l factors influencing response, p r i o r attitudes towards a topic, and transfer, are a l l being more f u l l y explained, conceptually refined and made susceptible to measurement. A review of methodological needs shows the d e s i r a b i l i t y of combining various measurement techniques and of establishing or maintaining communication with teachers. A design calculated to meet these desiderata follows. 22 THE CHOSEN APPROACH The Questions Narrowed Question 1. To what extent can Vancouver grade eleven students who do not know of the origins of Canadian poems nevertheless recognize them as being (a) national or (b) regional ( B r i t i s h Columbian)? The conditions "Canadian," "regional," and "foreign" poems were b u i l t into the design (following). Question 1 was approached through questionnaire. Question 2. To what extent do Vancouver grade eleven students respond d i f f e r e n t l y to t h e i r nation's poetry or to t h e i r region's poetry, than to poetry from other countries? This question was approached through free response and content analysis. Question 3- To what extent do differences i n response as sought above (and i f they exist) depend upon the students' being t o l d of the origins of the poetry? The conditions knowledge and non-knowledge were b u i l t into the design. Question 3 was approached through free-response and content analysis. 23 The Design The design (see Figure I f o r a representation) was a f u l l y crossed 2 x 2 " f a c t o r i a l " with 12 r e p l i c a t i o n s . It pro-vided that 2k Vancouver grade 11 classes l i s t e n e d to taped recordings of a pa i r of unfamiliar poems and, concurrently, read them p r i v a t e l y . The students were then asked to respond to the poems f r e e l y , i n writing. The free, written, responses were subjected to content analysis. (See Table I f o r category headings.) Information so gained was used to answer the research questions. There were 12 poem pairs, each p a i r being presented twice ( i n reversed order to counter order-effects). Each p a i r consisted of one Canadian poem and one New Zealand poem, thus embodying the independent variable "Poem Origins." Poem content was l i m i t e d by sampling from descriptive landscape poems written since the beginning of the 1930s. "Poem Origins" was refined by d i v i d i n g the Canadian poems into h a l f from B r i t i s h Columbia and ha l f from other Canadian regions. Separate analysis was made of responses to each poem group. Each class was divided, randomly, i n two. The Canadian poem i n the pa i r that was given to one class sub-group was l a b e l l e d as Canadian. The New Zealand poem i n the same pair was l a b e l l e d as Non-Canadian. The same Canadian and New Zealand poems given to the other class sub-group were not so INDEPENDENT I . VARIABLES RESPONSE ANALYSIS S T U D E N T S Denied Knowledge Given Knowledge \ (Students] KNOWLEDGE Given Knowledge Denied Knowledge ^  Rest-of-f Canada B r i t i s h (Columbia** (Poems) ORIGINS — POEMS RC J O r i g i n s BC Or i g i n s > NZ Ori g i n s \ New u /Zealand! FREE RESPONSE SUPPORTING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES I i I i I I . . . N / _ CONTENT ANALYSIS SCHEME SUPPLEMENTARY •^i CONTENT ANALYSIS i I RESEARCH QUESTIONS , FUTURE RESEARCH H W H H Si O O H O > M O !2j l a b e l l e d . Thus the two class sub-groups embodied, through l a b e l l i n g and non-labelling, the independent variable "Knowledge VV Had any students possessed "Knowledge" i n advance of the experimental session ("Pre-Knowledge"), the "Knowledge" condition was to be preserved by the separate analysis of data from those students. S i m i l a r l y , there was to be a separate analysis of the data from any students who were neither experi-mentally t o l d nor knew i n advance the "Origins" of the poetry but who nevertheless s i g n i f i e d at the end of the experimental period that they had "guessed" such "Origins" ("Deduced Knowledge"). The i n t e g r i t y of the student base, Vancouver students, was preserved by the separate treatment of data from those students who had not l i v e d (a) i n Canada or (b) i n B r i t i s h Columbia during a l l of the f i v e years immediately preceding the study. Several supporting instruments and procedures- served to provide controls and furnish data f o r supplementary analysis: a questionnaire ascertaining students' past places of residence; a questionnaire gauging students' "Pre-Knowledge" and "Deduced Knowledge"; a questionnaire assessing students' personal and school experience with Canadian l i t e r a t u r e ; a questionnaire checking students' awareness of the study's purpose; a supple-mentary content a n a l y t i c probe within and across the main 26 a n a l y t i c a l categories; and a separate analysis of the responses of the groups who were excluded from the main study—where t h e i r numbers warranted i t . Grounds for separate analysis, i n addition to those already mentioned, were: a student's aware-ness of the study's purpose before, or early i n , the experi-mental session; and "high" f a m i l i a r i t y with Canadian l i t e r a t u r e ("Extensive Canadian Reading"). The o v e r a l l design created optimum conditions f o r gathering data on certain facets of student response which, though not related to the central hypotheses, did seem to war-rant l a t e r study. The instruments designed to such ends appear i n the t e s t i n g battery (Appendix I I ) . The corpus of free-response material created by the central i n v e s t i g a t i o n provided similar opportunities for future research. Some s p e c i f i c approaches are suggested and some tentative findings reported i n Chapter V. CHAPTER II FREE RESPONSE AND CONTENT ANALYSIS WRITTEN, FREE, IMMEDIATE RESPONSE Li t e r a r y Response Response i s a designation f o r "that Gordian combina-t i o n of a f f e c t i v e , cognitive, perceptual, and psycho-motor a c t i v i t i e s that take place when a person reads a book."^" It i s a l a b e l f o r a l l that the reader f e e l s , thinks or does as a r e s u l t of his reading, hearing or watching performed a l i t e r -ary work. Response may manifest i t s e l f overtly i n some action or expression; i t may never be outwardly expressed. I t may occur as immediate r e f l e c t i o n ; i t may surface only years a f t e r i n i t i a l reading. Its public expression and inner manifestation probably never coincide f u l l y . 2 D e f i n i t i o n s of response are seldom s a t i s f a c t o r y . Like those of the IEA and Purves below, they are usually at once too s p e c i f i c and too vague: Response i s best defined as the ongoing i n t e r a c t i o n between the i n d i v i d u a l and the work, an i n t e r a c t i o n that may continue long a f t e r the i n d i v i d u a l has fi n i s h e d reading. This response i s never made f u l l y e x p l i c i t , f or one could not t e l l of a l l the associations, ideas, feelings, and r e f l e c t i o n s that take place as one reads a novel, say, or a f t e r one has fi n i s h e d i t . 0 Response begins the moment one f i r s t confronts the work and ends—well, i n some cases, i t ends only 28 when the i n d i v i d u a l dies. It includes reading, thinking, f e e l i n g , and acting i n some r e l a t i o n to the stimulus of the l i t e r a r y work. It mani-fests i t s e l f i n a v a r i e t y of ways.j^ An alternative to making conventional d e f i n i t i o n a l statements i s to d e t a i l the variable-sets which, i n concert, make response possible. Thus response might be said to involve someone who responds. It involves something which i s responded to. It involves the circumstances i n which the i n t e r a c t i o n between reader and work takes place.^ And i t involves the mode of response. There are those who stress the f i r s t v a riable-set. As a group t h e i r comments range widely from stressing the 6 7 "primacy of s u b j e c t i v i t y " and the " i n d i v i d u a l character"' of response to the quieter assertion that What the reader brings to the text i s as important as the text i t s e l f i n determining the kind of response the reader w i l l have.g Others w i l l not allow the reader's r o l e i n response, and the complexity that derives from his contribution, to diminish the contribution made by the work i t s e l f . The l a t t e r triggers response and i s much more than a t r i g g e r . I t possesses Q i t s own inherent power. It i s i t s e l f a source of response complexity; Literature i s by nature so much concerned with multiple l e v e l s of meaning, the tensions of meaning inherent i n ambiguity and metaphor, and 29 the subtle significance of statements and events that objective certainty w i l l often be impossible. There i s l i t t l e argument that circumstances of reading influence response. Response modes are acknowledged as being important too; they w i l l be discussed l a t e r (see below, p. 33 et seq.). Most recent research into l i t e r a r y response has assumed a dynamic, complex, r e l a t i o n s h i p operating between a l l four v a r i -able-sets. I t has la r g e l y accepted, and consolidated, the "tra n s a c t i o n i s t " view of l i t e r a t u r e as a "mode of experience to be r e f l e c t e d on" rather than as a discrete subject matter f o r . 11 analysis. The present investigation was s i m i l a r l y based upon the assumption of a four-way re l a t i o n s h i p . The reader's r o l e was acknowledged—he was held to embody attitudes towards nations and l i t e r a t u r e , and his idiosyncracies were controlled by measure-ment across class groups. The l i t e r a r y work's ro l e was acknowl-edged—poems embodied "National" or "Regional" "Origins" and l i t e r a r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The circumstances of reading were acknowledged—it being assumed necessary to cancel out t h e i r i n -fluence by standardizing procedures across groups. The mode of response was acknowledged—care being taken i n choosing which mode to ask students to respond i n . One v i r t u e of the term "response" i s that i t d i s t i n -guishes between, on one hand, a reader's primary reaction to a work and, on the other, c r i t i c i s m and appreciation (which the primary reaction may or may not also be). The l a t t e r depend upon response but go further. Whereas response e n t a i l s no 3© necessary evaluative act, appreciation does. When we " t r a i n " students to express response i n p a r t i c u l a r ways (under names l i k e " c r i t i c a l reading," "e x p l i c a t i o n de texte," " c r i t i c i s m , " . 1 p "taste," or some other term), when we encourage them to prefer c e r t a i n works and certa i n interpretations, when we ask them to consciously analyze and give reasons f o r t h e i r responses, when we have them attempting to "extract" the " f u l l meaning" from a piece, when we attempt to have them counter effects of personal preference i n order to judge " f a i r l y , " then we are asking them to move from response to c r i t i c i s m and appreciation. The d i s t i n c t i o n i s important because the present study was an attempt to st a r t at the beginning: to f i n d what and where Canadian students' responses are with respect to Canadian l i t e r a t u r e before asking that they be moulded or trained. It dealt with c r i t i c i s m only i n Norvell's sense: "Children are the truest of a l l c r i t i c s when they are free to speak t h e i r 13 minds i n simple terms." J "Response" i n (Empirical) Educational Research "Response," as a concept, i s elusive and amorphous. How, then, to measure i t ? Should the candidate report on his enjoyment of what he i s reading? Should his taste be measured against some norm? Should we take an electroencephalograph?-^ Whatever choice he makes a researcher w i l l measure only one facet, or a very few, of response. Researchers have generally 31 accepted t h i s fact and rejected the p o s s i b i l i t y of assessing, i n any single "observable behaviour," the global concept "respond to a work of literature.""'"^ Instead they have set 16 about "fathoming and cataloguing the ingredients" ; r e f i n i n g from the s c i e n t i f i c a l l y vague phraseology of l i t e r a r y appreci-atio n and response some s p e c i f i c components. To the l a t t e r they have attached, i n the context of psychology and psychom-etry, behaviours that seem to of f e r a di r e c t approach to 17 empirical measurement. ' In short, research has been predicated upon the "operational" d e f i n i t i o n of response elements. I f a global concept "response" i s ever suggested i t i s usually as an aggregation of such elements. The research has never been easy; behaviours are hard to f i n d . The search for them i s caught i n a tension between the multifaceted "humanistic encounter with l i t e r a t u r e and the 18 mechanical appraisal of education." The f i r s t sets consider-able store by the complex and a l l u s i v e ; the second places weight 19 on the conceptually simple and objective. 7 Moreover, the problems do not end with refinement or d e f i n i t i o n . The very means used to "measure" response may 20 change or destroy i t . And when attempts are made tp preserve "normal" reading conditions, as when a teacher observes and records during "normal" lessons, the data collected i s not 21 usually of the sort that would " s a t i s f y a cost accountant." An added d i f f i c u l t y i s that response i s probably no "series of s t a t i c decisions [but] a continuously moving, changing, thought 32 2 2 process." I t i s q u i c k s i l v e r to the behaviourists' meshes. Given such problems, i t i s important that behavioural research into response to l i t e r a t u r e be seen f o r what i t i s — a p a r t i c u l a r type of exploration into p a r t i c u l a r parts of the l i t e r a r y or aesthetic experience. Like a l l l i t e r a r y endeavour 2 3 i t defies absolute v a l i d a t i o n . J To introduce the s p e c i f i c response-measures that follow, an analogy i s us e f u l . I f s p e c i f i c response behaviours can be compared to representations on a radar screen, deeper response might be acknowledged as the objects represented, merely, by the b l i p s . The b l i p s o f f e r no fine d e f i n i t i o n ; they do indicate a presence. Response proper might be seen vaguely, i n glimpses and not-quite-surely, but i t i s represented. Again, because the b l i p s on one scanning do not assure t h e i r subject's f i x i t y i n space, response manifestations " i d e n t i f i e d " i n the present experiment might not be assumed stable. Yet on d i f f e r e n t scanners and over repeated scannings si m i l a r patterns would suggest a stable presence. Accordingly, where d i f f e r e n t school classes show s i m i l a r patterns i n ex-pressed responses the l a t t e r might be held to indicate s t a b l e — oh, at the time —response factors. S i m i l a r l y , as the tracking of objects over time w i l l r e g i s t e r d i r e c t i o n a l movements, so future r e p l i c a t i o n s of the present experiment at d i f f e r e n t student age l e v e l s might y i e l d information more fi r m l y establishing the nature, through show-3d Ing t h e i r development, of the response factors that were measured here. F i n a l l y , the radar analogy offers a caution. The scanner most c l e a r l y picks up general groupings or movements. Massed "blips and gross movements tend to obscure lesser patterns. This study, too, as a f i r s t enquiry, dealt mainly with gross movements and g e n e r a l i t i e s . I f i t did not r e g i s t e r smaller patterns and movements that might only be because i t was not equipped to f i n d them. Some Aspects of Response: The Present Study Expressed (Written) Response The tangible facet of response chosen f o r the present study was i t s verbal expression. It i s true that the elements of writing about l i t e r a t u r e "are not necessarily i d e n t i c a l with the elements of response" i t s e l f . ^ A l l that i s thought, f e l t , 26 or even spoken w i l l not be written down. When i t i s , writing tends to impose i t s own l o g i c upon response. And written response i s influenced by educational background: nations or cultures, i t i s known, and possibly i n d i v i d u a l schools or school areas too, fos t e r d i s t i n c t i v e modes of approach to and ex-27 pression about l i t e r a t u r e . ' On the other hand there were advantages i n using written response: i t i s the facet most susceptible to analysis and "measurement"; i t i s the one most widely probed i n research; a student used to writing i n response to poetry, but not to being interviewed personally or t a l k i n g i n i s o l a t i o n , may express i n writing something much closer to the "psychological event" of responding than he would i n an interview; because the person who evaluated his writing i s more distant than an i n t e r -viewer, the student might have less fear of offending him (or less desire to offend him); and written response i s a form 28 valued by teachers. Since students were randomly assigned to experimental groups within i n t a c t classes, and since both student groups worked i n the same (written) response mode, d i f f e r i n g f a c i l i t y i n expression between students should not have caused any con-29 founding of variables. 7 Free Response In spite of the labour i t demands, the free response technique seems to many teachers and researchers, and f o r many purposes, the most acceptable method by which to probe l i t e r a r y 30 response. Insofar as i t deals with the student's own, unprompted, ideas and words, free response offers a r e l a t i v e l y d i r e c t approach to deeper response--including underlying attitudes. For the same reasons, i t preserves the personal q u a l i t y of response i n a l l i t s complexity, i n t e g r i t y and texture. ' Further, i t ensures that the d i r e c t i o n of an enquiry and i t s modes of analysis do not predetermine response patterns to the same.extent as do many other approaches. Techniques l i k e personal questioning, or instruments l i k e multiple choice question sets and semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s often mould the re-sponses they pretend to discover. By contrast, an analysis of free response may follow a subject's expression i n several d i f f e r e n t directions and to several d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s . It i s exceedingly important i n pioneer work to avoid the imposition of a p r i o r i patterns upon response. Response patterns must be . allowed to announce themselves. They should be anticipated only generally and as p o s s i b i l i t i e s . For these reasons, at l e a s t , free-response possessed a p a r t i c u l a r v a l i d i t y f o r t h i s study. It i s true that free response does not eliminate previously-learned response patterns or the influence of par-t i c u l a r experimental formats, procedures, and ins t r u c t i o n s . S t i l l , response w i l l always compromise between " i n d i v i d u a l i t y " and outside influences. -And since, i n the present study, twenty-four classes were involved, response patterns should not have been simply a r t i f a c t s of, or confoundings with, differences i n learned response patterns. (No such differences were, i n fact, detected.) There i s s t i l l the danger that an a n a l y t i c a l scheme can force responses into i t s own procrustean bed, d i s t o r t i n g or 31 obscuring t h e i r nature. But because a n a l y t i c a l patterns can be established post p r i o r i , because they can be altered, and 36" because several can be used at once—as the intact free re-sponses suggest or allow--the danger can be minimized. This point i s reinforced somewhat by the number of d i f f e r e n t analy-t i c a l schemes that have been created for d i f f e r e n t response 32 materials. It i s s i m i l a r l y reinforced by an often expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n — . u l t i m a t e l y subjective, yes, but from respected f i g u r e s — t h a t the i d e n t i f i e d patterns do inhere i n the material. The IEA team, Sussams, Smith Tyler et a l . , and Loban respectively have reported t h e i r experiences: This expressed response exists i n a pattern which can be described...~~ [ i t a l i c s mine] no-one can read through t h e i r statements—there are well over 600 of them--without fi n d i n g certain impressions taking shape i n his mind.^ [ i t a l i c s mine] These comments were sorted u n t i l the following widely prevalent modes of response were d i s c o v e r e d . ^ [ i t a l i c s mine] By reading a l l of the responses to "Miss B r i l l " several times, the experimenter became aware that they ordered themselves into d i s t i n c t categories and that a design for content analysis could be,, developed on the basis of the systematic character of responses to a single story. [ f i r s t i t a l i c s mine] I have had the same experience. I also have had to r e j e c t extant a n a l y t i c a l schemes because they f a i l e d to deal adequately with the patterns established by the p i l o t study responses and, l a t e r , by the f u l l study responses. The free response technique, then, helps avoid the 37 imposition of categories upon responses. It also counters the "right-answer" syndrome. Research with attitude scales and ex-perience with multiple choice tests indicate that students w i l l tend to answer i n the way they think the teacher or researcher 37 would answer or prefer them to answer. ' Such a condition i s disturbing even i n "comprehension" testing; i n studies designed primarily to gauge personal feelings and attitudes, and depending upon t h e i r frank expression, i t cannot be entertained.-^ Rather than ask the reader to concur with, and second-guess, a pre-determined " r i g h t " answer (as a question set might) i t seemed more appropriate i n t h i s study to allow him to construct his own meanings and si g n i f i c a n c e s . 7 Precisely because free response does not d i r e c t students towards any s p e c i f i c areas or "answers," some research-ers have feared that the technique w i l l not produce data s u f f i c i e n t l y related to t h e i r research-interest or s u f f i c i e n t l y de-d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on key variables to make i t worth-while using. But most implemented research projects using free-response have 41 demonstrated that the fear i s misplaced. P i l o t work for t h i s study also allayed the fear: the response data bore cl o s e l y on the research questions and exhibited s u f f i c i e n t variance to encourage further exploration. Besides, differences that emerge without d i r e c t prompting are more l i k e l y to be of educational and c u l t u r a l s ignificance than those that must be teazed out. For a l l these reasons free response seemed a sound technique with which to open the in v e s t i g a t i o n into Canadian 33 student l i t e r a r y response. It i s disposed to map broad response configurations f i r s t ; i t does not, inherently, predict t h e i r shape. Its product should be a neutral description upon which subsequent questions of response-quality, teaching approach, 4-2 and the l i k e can be framed. Other pioneering studies, includ-ing the IEA project, have started at the same point and assumed 4-3 the same predication. J Immediate Response The term "response" must be narrowed s t i l l further so that i t may be observed. "Immediate" response was chosen for several reasons. I t has i t s own, inherent, i n t e r e s t and importance for teaching. Gauging response at a f i r s t s i t t i n g reduces the number of extraneous variables acting upon response. Lb, And immediate response may maximize a t t i t u d i n a l v a r i a b l e s . To measure immediate response i s not to deny that response may change—though great change should not be too f r e e l y assumed.^ Nor does a response written at a f i r s t reading deny the reader a period of i n i t i a l r e f l e c t i o n . A r e f l e c t i o n period between reading and writing was encouraged i n the present study. (See below, pp. 86-7.) 39 ANALYZING RESPONSE: CONTENT ANALYSIS Content Analysis i n General Content Analysis Defined Content analysis attempts, i n i t s various forms, to control the amorphous and elusive q u a l i t i e s of verbal expres-sion by systematically describing and counting recurring 46 categories of manifest content. The categories i n a content analysis scheme are usually shaped, not only to r e f l e c t accurately the content, but also to y i e l d data relevant to s p e c i f i c hypotheses. Results can be expressed numerically and thus made susceptible to s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. The p r i n c i p l e behind content analysis i s not new: Anybody who has ever looked at written materials or l i s t e n e d to t a l k or speeches and thought of ways to categorize and order the elements therein has been using content analysis . . . . i t has been i n use informally f o r a long t i m e . ^ Even so-called q u a l i t a t i v e and subjective modes of analysis frequently employ quantitative descriptions and terms, l i k e 48 "repeatedly," " r a r e l y , " "usually," and "often." Behavioural science has merely applied e x p l i c i t n e s s , rigour, and formality to the idea, requiring., that an i n i t i a l period of speculation and enquiry with such descriptions be followed by, f i r s t , the formulation, d e f i n i t i o n , and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of categories, and-; 49 then by a more or less rigorous analysis i n t h e i r terms. y 40 Content analysis has received increasing attention i n recent years. Its widespread use i n communications research led to formal reviews i n Berelson (1952) and Muehl (I96I). Its use i n important l i t e r a r y response studies by such figures as Richards, Taba, Meckel, Loban, Squire, and the IEA greatly elevated i t s status i n that f i e l d , where i t i s now widely and 51 variously employed. The Reasons f o r Choosing Content Analysis The decisions to use free response and content anal-y s i s were, i n fa c t , one. Free responses cannot e a s i l y be analyzed and applied to hypotheses or research questions except by some form of content analysis. The technique provided a means by which to control t h i s enquiry once patterns had been found. I t was well-suited to cope with the more than 500 response protocols that were generated. Content analysis has other advantages. Because i t does not preshape the content under analysis, the technique permits a l t e r n a t i v e patterns or a n a l y t i c a l modes to be applied. Statements within categories remain a l i v e to examination. It thus meets, to some degree, the several objections that might be raised to the empirical assessment of response: that cate-gorization v i o l a t e s the "e s s e n t i a l dynamics of the transaction"; that i t i s b l i n d to the peculiar complexity of l i t e r a r y re-sponse;-^ and that, as i n gross or poorly adapted applications, 54 i t hides sub-behaviours within or between i t s categories. 41 Problems with Content Analysis Of course content analysis i s not without problems. F i r s t , i t i s extremely time-consuming by comparison with most measurement techniques. Second, the gap between humanistic i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p or complexity and empirical quantitative behaviours cannot be f u l l y bridged even by supplementary tech-niques.-^ Intended ambiguities, varied le v e l s of meaning, nuance, and so on, may defy the content analyst. The o b j e c t i v i t y and si m p l i c i t y of the technique must not be mistaken for. complete-ness. Third, notwithstanding the f a c t that content analysis i s always applied to responses previously made and usually only a f t e r close attention to patterns i n those responses, i t may s t i l l impose patterns upon them. Fourth, even the d i s t i n c t i o n between manifest and late n t content, of which the former i s normally the subject of analysis, cannot always be sustained. The "what-is-said" i s sometimes so in e x t r i c a b l y bound up with the "why" and "how" that i t cannot be f u l l y understood without reference to them.-^ F i f t h , f o r most of the reasons l i s t e d , the v a l i d i t y of any given analysis scheme cannot be unequivo-c a l l y established. Though cases can be made to support a p a r t i c u l a r scheme, i t s v a l i d i t y i s ultimately a "face" v a l i d i t y : i t i s v a l i d to each reader i n proportion as he accepts i t s terms. These reservations having been noted, content analysis was s t i l l the best a n a l y t i c a l procedure f o r the present purpose. 42 Care was taken, both i n developing the system i t s e l f and i n employing supplementary analysis, to reduce i t s shortcomings. C r i t e r i a f o r Developing a Content Analysis Scheme There are three c r i t e r i a , apart from that demanding s i m p l i c i t y and c l a r i t y , u s u a l l y considered i n developing a content analysis scheme. The most important has already been discussed: the scheme should cl o s e l y follow, or be derived from, the material being analyzed; a n a l y t i c a l units should be developed only a f t e r sample material has been closely s c r u t i -nized.'^ Second, the research questions should determine which of the various patterns that can be traced (or items that can be 60 found) i n any given content w i l l be submitted to analysis. Third, a c r i t e r i o n subordinate to the f i r s t two, i s that which 6 l seeks generalization. There i s added value i n a scheme that refers beyond i t s s p e c i f i c concerns to some other scheme, a n a l y t i c a l system, or theory. One d i f f i c u l t y i n applying the t h i r d c r i t e r i o n i s that i t can d i s t o r t the primary study; true g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y i s d i f f i c u l t to establish. A conspicuous example of t h i s d i f f i c u l t y i s furnished by the Purves-Rippere scheme "Elements of Writing About a L i t e r a r y Work." It was designed i n connec-t i o n with the IEA international study but the breadth of that study and research enthusiasm have lent the scheme wider currency. Now an increasing number of researchers, a l l with t h e i r d i f f e r e n t materials, purposes and assumptions are finding that i t does not meet t h e i r needs. In fact the National Assess-ment of Educational Progress has added three categories to Purves's o r i g i n a l f o u r . ^ Schemes other than Purves's prove 64 the same point. What Berelson wrote i n 1 9 5 2 of communica-tions analysis i s s t i l l true today of literary-response analysis i t i s premature to attempt to formulate content analysis categories f o r ap p l i c a t i o n to a l l problems and a l l m a t e r i a l s . ^ The Scheme Used i n This Study The Need The Scheme (hereafter capitalized) used i n t h i s study was developed to analyze p i l o t response-material a f t e r e x i s t i n g schemes proved inadequate. Information relevant to the study and c l e a r l y present i n the response material was not being drawn into categories i n any useful way. The C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Unit: Its Physical Parameters Categorization was made on semantic grounds since the study was concerned with meanings. The categorization unit was the single "statement" (others have variously c a l l e d i t an "assertion,".an "idea," a "proposition," a "thought-unit," a "communication" and so on). Its length was determined by con-sistency of statement or continued correspondence to a coding category or set of categories. The statement was judged to have ended when the coder found he needed a new category or 44 set of categories to r e f l e c t the content. Grammatical units were rejected "because several semantic elements of response can be merged i n one clause or sentence and because one semantic element of response can over-lap several grammatical units. Indeed, the written s t y l e that free response allows the responder to use often obscures the parameters of the grammatical unit i t s e l f . With these problems, to code the l a t t e r would have been to screen unnecessarily the 66 mam enquiry. Decisions on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n were permitted to take context beyond the unit into account. In t h i s way the Scheme was better equipped to cope with obscurities within the c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n unit and with response unity and complexity. Response complexity was also met by the multiple c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of statement units where t h e i r content indicated multiple meaning. Many statements received more than one placement. The Number of C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Units The chosen number of categories was governed j o i n t l y by the nature of the f i n a l response material and the research questions. Optimum a n a l y t i c a l coherence and r e l i a b i l i t y seemed to exist at the present number ( i . e . 11, see below, Table I ) . A supplementary analysis "Within and Across" (see below p . 9 1 ) was designed to cut across the main a n a l y t i c a l scheme and o f f e r alternative viewings. The Meaning of Each Category (Table I i s a summary of the categories.) TABLE I THE CONTENT ANALYSIS SCHEME: CATEGORY HEADINGS 1. Evaluation 2, Comprehension 3. Description - Recapitulation 4. Transfer - Place 5. Transfer - Special 6. V i s u a l i s a t i o n 7. Involvement 8. Depth 9. Interpretation 10. Form 11. Dictums and Predispositions The meaning, and v a l i d i t y , of each category depends upon the degree of "sameness" betweenrstatements placed 46 together. To i l l u s t r a t e t h i s "sameness" and. to allow the present reader to ascertain the appropriateness of the labels and descriptions given each category, examples of response statements are displayed below. (Some examples of complete response protocols are displayed i n Appendix IV, A.) Sometimes i n response protocols, apparently simple phrases can s t r i k e d i f f e r e n t readers or the same reader i n d i f f e r e n t ways. For example, " t h i s interests me" can mean that the responder i s beginning to be attracted to a work, that he i s beginning to think through an idea that the poem has suggested to him, or that he finds the poem to be of a type which has always interested him and which, accordingly, he " l i k e s . " Key words under each category show what p o l i c y was decided upon fo r consistent coding i n such cases. Notes sometimes elaborate upon these decisions. Any statement could be placed i n several categories. Its appearance (below) i n one, on what may be r e l a t i v e l y s l i g h t grounds, does not necessarily indicate an oversight of the more obvious placement. Placement i n a category depended upon manifest content, not upon the statement's "value" (see below, p. 5 4 , What the Categories Represent). The following statements are printed as the students wrote them. ( l ) Evaluation Statements i n which the student expresses, of the t o t a l poems "enjoyment," "pleasure," " l i k i n g , " . e t c . ( p o s i t i v e ) ; or t h e i r opposites (negative). This category brings together statements i n which the student indicates his s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the whole poem. e.g. positives I l i k e d the poem more than the other one. Overall I found #2 the most enjoyable. negatives But I didn't l i k e i t very well. They're not either what I would c a l l good poems. Notess ( i ) This category excludes evaluative statements that apply only to parts or features of the poem, to the scene i t portrays, or to the p e c u l i a r i t i e s of the recorded presenta-tions. ( i i ) The category duplicates, to some extent, that dimension of evaluative response measured by the L i k e r t type preference scale (see below, p. 159). Since a l l students responded to the scale, and since the scale measured i n t e n s i t y of preference to some degree, the o v e r a l l p r o f i l e of student preference between poems was taken from that scale. Category 1 served to show the preferences only of those students who cared to express them f r e e l y . There was a high degree of association 48 between the L i k e r t scale and. Category 1 (see below, p. 61). (2) Comprehension Statements i n which the student refers to reading and "understanding" d i f f i c u l t i e s or t h e i r opposites, i n more or less d i r e c t terms. Positive relates to posit i v e "understanding," grasped "meaning" (but not "meaningfulness"—see Category 7» Involve-ment), " c l a r i t y , " etc. ( p o s i t i v e ) ; or t h e i r opposites (nega-t i v e ) . e.g. po s i t i v e : #1 poem seemed easier to understand o v e r a l l . Poem #2 i s also easier to read. negative: I think poem #1 i s not clear, i t doesn't get the message across. A l l t h i s just makes i t hard to understand. (3) Description-Recapitulation Statements i n which the student simply describes the landscape portrayed i n the poem, o f f e r i n g no interpretation. e.g. This stream s t a r t i n g on a mountain top and running down through i t s l i f e u n t i l i t reaches the sea. Through the forests and eroded debris. The clouds are d r i f t i n g slowly across the sky, and the water i s quite s t i l l . (4-) Transfer-Place.• Statements s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y i n g the scene or sett i n g portrayed i n the poem. e.g. p o s i t i v e : I t reminds me of our mountains the morning a f t e r a super hot day. It reminded me of a mountain I saw one time while going through the Rockies. negative: It t e l l s you how the s i t u a t i o n i s without people and you compare i t with your own places or known places with people. "The Scene" i s just l i k e a Shagra-La set up. An imaginary make-believe world. (5) Transfer-Special Transfer statements r e l a t i n g to the world known to the student. The student says, e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y , "th is the way my world i s " or " i s not." Indicators include: ""believable," "true," " r e a l , " "relevant," etc. ( p o s i t i v e ) ; or t h e i r opposites (negative). e.g. p o s i t i v e : The f i r s t one was easier to understand because i t dealt with a very r e a l s i t u a t i o n . This poem moved me i n a spe c i a l way because I have had sim i l a r happenings on the waters. It gives me a more relaxed f e e l i n g than the second one because everything seems to be more normal. There i s s t i l l the l i f e l e s s n e s s but i t is a l l r i g h t i n the f i r s t poem. The environ-ment agrees with the l i f e l e s s n e s s . negative: I have always thought of water as a continuously moving thing that i s very a l i v e . In the above l i n e of the poem though the water i s as l i f e l e s s as everything else. It i s asleep and i n d i f f e r e n t to existence. I have never seen l i k e i t [ F a l l ] described i n the poem. The setting i s d e f i n i t e l y somewhere else. (6) V i s u a l i s a t i o n Statements i n which the student indicates, i n r e l a -t i v e l y d i r e c t terms, that he i s able to "see" c l e a r l y or v i v i d l y the scene portrayed i n the poem. e.g. p o s i t i v e : You can r e a l l y see the mud and old rotted posts. I could picture the scene r i g h t away. negative: In the second one you can't r e a l l y see the scene. For the second poem I cannot think of anything that suggests a setting of some kind . . . i t i s too confusing and I myself can't sort i t out. (7) Involvement Statements i n which the student indicates that he became "caught up" i n the poem, through words or statements l i k e : "depressing," "suspenseful," "moving," "gripping," " i n t e r e s t i n g , " "reminding," and VI f e l t I was there," etc. (po s i t i v e ) ; or t h e i r opposites (negative). e.g. po s i t i v e : I found the poem to be slow, sad, and depressing. This poem i s so f u l l of mystery and energy. negative: Neither poem made me f e e l relaxed, tense, or anything else. [The poem] only t o l d you about i t not r e a l l y l e t you see, f e e l , or hear the insides of i t . Note: This category i s distinguished from Category 1 (Evaluation) i n that i t contains statements less distanced and judgmental than those i n 1. The following statement i s scored under Category 1 f o r "good" and Category 7 f o r "i n t e r e s t i n g " : The second poem wasn't as good or in t e r e s t i n g as the f i r s t . (8) Depth Statements i n which the student attributes depth of meaning to the poem, e.g. p o s i t i v e : To me i t has a l o t more meaning to i t . The f i r s t one was very deep and hard to understand, at least f o r me. negative: I think maybe t h i s poem i s too clear or t e l l s you too much. This i n h i b i t s me to l e t my imagination go. The f i r s t poem does not have much meaning to i t . (9) Interpretation Statements i n which the student assigns a meaning or meanings to the poem. e.g. I guess the point these poems are t r y i n g to make i s that the sea or ocean i s peaceful, secluded world on i t s own. And i t t e l l s you how some sounds never rest l i k e the sound of the wind. Note: Interpretation i s also approached through the anal-y s i s " S i g n i f i c a n t A djectivals" (below, p. 14-3) to the extent that the l a t t e r do reveal interpretations. (10) Form Statements i n which the student refers to s t r u c t u r a l elements i n the poem, to the craft of writing generally, or to the common s t y l i s t i c modes "by which l i t e r a r y works are c l a s s i -f i e d . e.g. because i t was to f u l l of vague imagery and things that might be symbols or might not. It was the word or phrase sound that was important, not d i s t i n c t l y the word or phrase meaning. more poetic and flowing also. Note: This category often contains, i n practice, many statements i n which students s u p e r f i c i a l l y , loosely, and some-times apparently d u t i f u l l y , use (or mis-use) formal terms l i k e "image" and "symbol." e.g. However contradicting symbolism along with the general plot made the poem somewhat confusing. (11) Dictums and Predispositions Statements i n which the student suggests by f a i r l y d i r e c t comment, l i t e r a r y desiderata or the attitudes with which he would approach any poem. e.g. I l i k e to read Canadian works, e s p e c i a l l y from my own province. I think i t means more to me. I think, to be able to make the poem express f e e l -ing, there must be a great deal more action. Nature i s good i n poems i f they can describe i t l i k e i t i s . What the Categories Represent It i s "both useful and s t a t i s t i c a l l y necessary to view each category as embodying a separate probe. The categories, although they are i n t e r - r e l a t e d , are not taxonomic; they were not assigned r e l a t i v e values for scoring purposes. It i s always d i f f i c u l t , and i t seemed counter to the s p i r i t of t h i s study to assert the primacy of any one category or to posit any category hierarchy. Schemes fo r analyzing 67 l i t e r a r y response are r a r e l y taxonomic, never convincingly so. Further, the present study aimed to f i n d out i f patterns existed, not to argue category value or, d i r e c t l y , teaching approaches. Studies which attempt to combine these goals always 68 r i s k t h e i r own d i s t o r t i o n . Nor did t h i s study judge the 69 "quality" or "accuracy" of responses. 7 Such judgment was, mainly, l e f t to l a t e r study. S i m i l a r l y , the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p between categories, suggested above, i s to be examined closely i n future research (see below, p. 166 ). Coding Details Coding was carried out only a f t e r class protocols were shuffled and student numbers masked (the numbers i d e n t i f i e d Knowledge conditions). Each statement was scored by the appropriate category number/s and by valence. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r each whole response protocol (and poem pair) was obtained by collapsing to 55 a single score a l l scores registered under each category f o r each poem. These collapsed scores were ca l l e d "Frequency" scores. Often the collapsed scores d i f f e r e n t i a t e d "between poems either "because only one poem was scored i n that category or "because valence d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the scores. Where no such automatic d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n occurred, responses were examined to see whether some statement, tendency, or nuance of expression would allow d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n (as would, usually, "e s p e c i a l l y , "less so," or "not as much"). Where d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n was possible, a pos i t i v e or negative score was assigned to one of the poems. Thus, from Frequency scores, "Comparative" scores were reached by deciding which poem, Canadian or New Zealand, was the one more p o s i t i v e l y treated i n each category. If no d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n could be made, the poems were scored equally. I f no scores were registered, a blank was l e f t . The use of one Comparative score per occurrence, per c l a s s i f i c a t i o n unit, per poem, sustained the radar analogy and p r i n c i p l e . The scanner reveals locations and direc t i o n s , mass i n t e n s i t i e s f a r less p r e c i s e l y . To state numbers or proportions of words, or degrees of emphasis, i n each protocol would have been to make demands of the free response technique that i t i s not designed to handle. (A gross quantitative measure was made independent of the Scheme. See below, pp. 108, 14-1 .) The technique does not, f o r example, assume that the length of 5'6 each statement corresponds to i t s importance i n the response. Besides, Berelson suggests that "large units of analysis pro-vide as accurate a picture of subject matter and partisanship 70 as small units of analysis."' Comparative scoring coped neatly with d i f f i c u l t - t o -c l a s s i f y statements. A c l a s s i f i c a t i o n could be arri v e d at through a statement previous to or subsequent to that which was troublesome. The dubious statement did not have to be, d i r e c t l y , asserted to mean such-and-such, as i t must i n word-counting. Comparative-score analysis coped i n a si m i l a r way with r e p e t i -tions i n response protocols. Repetitions did not, f i n a l l y , score twice. The Comparative-score analysis used i n t h i s study thus preserved responses from undue experimental or behavioural d i s t o r t i o n . Finer Scoring Details Answers to the research questions were sought by observing, i n each category, the r e l a t i v e frequencies of the Comparative scores under the d i f f e r e n t experimental conditions. To a s s i s t i n describing these frequencies the Chi-Square s t a t i s t i c was employed (see below, p. 101). The sorting of the numerical data and some s t a t i s -t i c a l t e s t i n g was carried out at the UBC Computing Centre using the program S t a t i s t i c a l Package For the So c i a l Sciences (SPSS). 57 The V a l i d i t y of the Scheme General V a l i d i t y i n content analysis i s , however one labels i t , 71 a matter of judgment and agreement.' There i s no absolute v a l i d i t y . Within a given scheme, individuals might disagree over anything from a p a r t i c u l a r item placement to the basic 72 p r i n c i p l e s of analysis. For the present scheme, I suggest four areas of judg-ment and possible agreement: my own judgment ("Claimed V a l i d -i t y " ) ; that "purchased" from studies or discussions whose a n a l y t i c a l schemes rel a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the present work ("Purchased V a l i d i t y " ) ; that of others who, on reading t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , accept the Scheme ("Attested V a l i d i t y " ) ; and that accumulating as other approaches and data echo my findings under the Scheme ("Accumulating V a l i d i t y " ) . Claimed V a l i d i t y I have already asserted the v a l i d i t y of many features of the Scheme. It r e f l e c t s well the actual responses to the landscape poems; i t provides categories both capable of d i s -tinguishing responses relevant to the study's purposes and s u f f i c i e n t l y l i m i t e d to render response material manageable; and i t has the capacity to handle multiple meanings i n response statements. 58 Procedures that I followed i n order to a t t a i n t h i s v a l i d i t y include: a thorough inves t i g a t i o n of e x i s t i n g systems; post p r i o r i construction and re v i s i o n ; extensive d i r e c t compari-son of statements within categories ("by scissors-and-paste procedures); and r e l i a b i l i t y checks and discussions. The Scheme was under constant review. Purchased V a l i d i t y E x i s t i n g schemes were the s t a r t i n g point i n the development of the Scheme. Although the l a t t e r was developed because the former proved inadequate to the present response-material, relationships remain between the two. Category 1, Evaluation, provides an example of such "purchased" v a l i d i t y . The example, i n c i d e n t a l l y , also demonstrates the need f o r the present Scheme. Evaluation corresponds, i n part, to the "Engagement-Involvement" and "Evaluation" categories of Purves's "Elements of Writing About a L i t e r a r y Work." Purves*s two categories contain, respectively, statements such as: "I do not usually l i k e Coleridge, but 'Kubla Khan' was d i f f e r e n t " ; and "These are good poems—clear, intimate and l i v i n g . ^ My Category 1 breaks down, for i t s own purposes, the d i s t i n c t i o n between the state-ments that Purves suggests i n his category t i t l e s . In both statements' the student p o s i t i v e l y evaluates. To be sure, the student i s saying other things as well but that i s a response complexity that my Scheme, not Purves*s, i s designed to accommo-date . So i t i s with many schemes: there are points of agreement and points of difference. Category 1 corresponds to the sub-category "General Judgments" of Squire's scheme but denies his common grouping, i n that category, of statements l i k e "I l i k e i t " ; " i t seems r e a l " ; and " i t goes i n one ear and out ma: 75 74-the other."' However Squire also maintains my d i s t i n c t i o n between evaluation and involvement. Smith, Tyler et a l . , for t h e i r large-scale probe,the "Eight-Year Study," created a category " S a t i s f a c t i o n i n the Thing Appreciated" which they characterize as follows: Appreciation manifests i t s e l f i n a f e e l i n g , on the part of the in d i v i d u a l , of deep s a t i s f a c t i o n i n and enthusiasm for the thing appreciated. The person who appreciates a given piece of l i t e r a t u r e finds i n i t an immediate, persistent, and easily-renewable enjoyment of extraordinary i n t e n s i t y . ^ one wants to learn whether or not a person a c t u a l l y prefers the works of art with which he is able to communicate.^ Category 1 also relates to three categories--"Receiving (Attending)," "Responding," and " V a l u i n g " — o f Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Affective Domain). The l i s t of schemes goes on. In none does categori-zation f u l l y coincide with mine. But a l l demonstrate a b e l i e f that a response element "evaluation" does exist. They further 6o demonstrate a wider b e l i e f i n the primary importance of "enjoy-ment" i n l i t e r a t u r e . Rosenblatt confidently maintains: "Few teachers of English would deny that the individual's a b i l i t y to read and enjoy l i t e r a t u r e i s the primary aim of l i t e r a r y study.""^ Muller speaks i n the same vein: "They [the Dartmouth Conference] agreed that the teacher should choose reading that 80 i s meaningful, in t e r e s t i n g , and enjoyable to children." And Hansson, i n defending the s u b j e c t i v i t y of evaluation, reminds us that teachers and students w i l l continue "to evaluate and to argue, at le a s t s i l e n t l y , for t h e i r p o s i t i v e or negative Q-l opinions of t h e i r reading." A s i m i l a r v a l i d a t i o n can be purchased f o r a l l of the present Scheme's categories. Attested V a l i d i t y Attested v a l i d i t y takes two forms f o r the present Scheme. F i r s t i s the intensive examination given i t i n r e l i a -b i l i t y checking. High r e l i a b i l i t y i n analyzing semantic content depends upon more than "face v a l i d i t y " f o r the co-scorer; i t requires that both scorers understand the p a r t i c u l a r scheme. 82 High r e l i a b i l i t y indicates a deeper v a l i d i t y . Second, any-one reading t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l be, and must be, his own judge of v a l i d i t y . The Scheme's terms and procedures are f u l l y announced to t h i s end. Accumulating V a l i d i t y In general not immediately available, t h i s form of 61 v a l i d i t y w i l l be most d i r e c t l y gained from the s p e c i f i c future research outlined below (see below, p. 158) i f i t produces res u l t s i n agreement with those produced by the Scheme. One fin d i n g that the present study's re s u l t s have, i n fact, already contributed to t h i s form of v a l i d i t y , i s the high c o r r e l a t i o n (A? - .67***) between Category 1 (Evaluation) and preferences registered on the L i k e r t s c a l e . ^ The R e l i a b i l i t y of the Scheme The most commonly employed r e l i a b i l i t y formula i n l i t e r a r y response analysis i s Lewin's. It reads 2 x the sum of agreements sum of items checked by both examiners Instruments analyzing response by Lewin's formula have produced Oh c o e f f i c i e n t s l i k e .85 (Lewin), .89 (Loban), and .83 ( S q u i r e ) . 4 " Purves considers a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of .75 to be high i n a l i t e r a t u r e t e s t . ^ Because of the multiple placement p r i n c i p l e , which I considered v i t a l i n order to r e f l e c t the often multilayered texture of response utterance, the present Scheme could not be checked using the Lewin formula. A form of percentage overlap was used instead. An independent analyst coded two randomly chosen protocols from each c l a s s — a t o t a l of 48 protocols or 10$ of the student sample. I had arrived at 188 Comparative 62 scores i n that sample. The check-coder d i f f e r e d to the extent of 16 scores (2 more and 14 fewer). Non-agreement thus amounted to 8.5$ and the r e l i a b i l i t y estimation to 91.5$- - T Very high, even by the percentage method. Moreover, a good propor-t i o n of non-agreements were scoring omissions, not differences between the coders on scores a c t u a l l y given. CHAPTER III EXPERIMENTAL PRACTICES AND DECISIONS INTRODUCTION This chapter d e t a i l s features of the design and discusses (against the background of the e a r l i e r , more general, discussion) the reasons for deciding upon each feature. I t i s important to remember that the design was shaped to reveal not the i n t r i c a c i e s of possible response to any given poem but generalized response sets with respect to the chosen poems as groups. 1 DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS Note: The d e f i n i t i o n s immediately following r e l a t e to the broad design. (Some other terms, such as those used to describe content analysis categories and s t a t i s t i c a l u n its, are defined elsewhere.) C a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the key terms w i l l now replace quotations marks. Poem Origins Poem Origins: the geographical area (region or nation) whose landscape i s portrayed, or i s ostensibly portrayed, by a par-t i c u l a r poem—as i n Canadian, Rest-of-Canada, B r i t i s h Columbia, or New Zealand poetry. Canadian (Can) Poetry: English poetry (not a t r a n s l a t i o n into English) portraying a scene that i s , or could e a s i l y be,Canadian. 64-B r i t i s h Columbia (BC) Poetry (Regional): English poetry (not a tr a n s l a t i o n into English) portraying a scene that i s , or could e a s i l y be, i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Rest-of-Canada (RC) Poetry: Canadian poetry other than that defined as B r i t i s h Columbia poetry. New Zealand (NZ) Poetry: English poetry (not a t r a n s l a t i o n into English) portraying a scene that i s , or could e a s i l y be, i n New Zealand. CAN/NZ: poem pairs made up of CAN and NZ works. RC/NZ: poem pairs made up of RC and NZ works. BC/NZ: poem pairs made up of BC and NZ works. Student Origins Student Origins: the region or nation i n which students resided during a l l of the f i v e years immediately preceding the study (from and including 1970). Canadian Students: students whose Origins are i n Canada. B r i t i s h Columbia Students: students whose Origins are i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Rest-of-Canada Students: students whose Origins are i n Canada but not i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Foreign Students: students whose Origins are not i n Canada. Student Knowledge, Awareness, and Recognition Knowledge: a student's awareness that a p a r t i c u l a r poem was written i n , or portrays, the landscape of a p a r t i c u l a r region or nation. Pre-Knowledge: a student's Knowledge i n advance of the experi-mental session. Deduced Knowledge: a student's Knowledge by reason of the student's noti c i n g or f e e l i n g i n one poem (and i n the absence of Given Knowledge) evidence by which he correc t l y assigns to i t i t s Origin. Given Knowledge (GK): a student's Knowledge by reason of his being given, i n an experimental session, a poem pa i r of which one poem i s l a b e l l e d "A Canadian Poem" or "A B.C. Poem" and the other poem i s l a b e l l e d " Non-Canadian; V-Denied Knowledge (DK): a student's lack of Knowledge of both poems presented to him. It i s the counterpart and opposite of the experimental treatment Given Knowledge. Awareness, being Aware: a student who i s aware of the study's procedures or purposes before he has completed his free response i s deemed to be Aware. Recognize, Recognition: a behaviour by which the student s i g n i -f i e s that he possesses Knowledge that a p a r t i c u l a r poem portrays the landscape of a p a r t i c u l a r region or nation. 66 Extensive Canadian Reading! a student's contact with Canadian l i t e r a t u r e when that contact i s registered as 4 or 5 on the scale "What Do You Know of These Poems?" THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Poem Origins General To control Origins was the obvious method by which to obtain a r e l a t i v e measure of the effects of Canadian poems on Canadian student responses. P i l o t studies using a Rest-of-Canada / New Zealand comparison produced variance strengthening t h i s assumption. The English-Canada / New Zealand (CAN/NZ) Comparison An experimental comparison i s best made between items d i f f e r i n g on key points but a l i k e i n other respects so that extraneous variables are reduced to a minimum. The l i t e r a t u r e s of English-Canada and New Zealand provided such a comparison. English l i t e r a r y development i n the two c o u n t r i e s — both are B r i t i s h "Older Dominions"—has involved a p a r a l l e l pre-occupation with landscape and a remarkable simultaneity i n breaking, from about the 1930s, with older, "imported," poetic t r a d i t i o n s . The pa i r i n g of poems from these countries thus seemed more j u s t i f i e d than would, say the pa i r i n g of Canadian and B r i t i s h landscape poems. The Rest-of-Canada / B r i t i s h Columbia Comparison (RC/NZ cf. BC/NZ) The Canada / New Zealand comparison could he enriched, without being distorted, by a regional sub-comparison. The sub-comparison was designed to show (primarily) whether poetry of the students* own region produced a response d i f f e r e n t to that produced by the Rest-of-Canada poetry. A concern with region was reviewed i n Chapter I, I assumed that the whole range of BC landscape would be f a m i l i a r to Vancouver students, through t h e i r d a i l y proximity to mountain and sea and through an awareness of the Okanagan as a dry-belt. The l a t t e r point was not c r i t i c a l : BC landscape poetry deals mostly with mountain and seascape and the poetry sample r e f l e c t e d that. Students who had not l i v e d i n BC f o r the f i v e years immediately preceding the study were eliminated from the main analysis (see below, p.88) Knowledge of Origins To control Knowledge seemed the best way to f i n d whether differences i n response, to national and foreign poetry, i f they occurred, depended upon students being directed towards poem differences or whether response difference could be triggered by factors inherent i n the poems. As an example, the former was to be assumed true i f differences i n response occurred only with l a b e l l e d poems (Given Knowledge). The absence of differences based upon Given Knowledge was not to be, i n i t s e l f , grounds to 68 deny the existence of a p r i o r attitude towards things Canadian. If Origins was a very powerful determinant of response i t might have overwhelmed any effects related to the labels."'' P i l o t studies, however, because they showed variance based on Given Knowledge, indicated both that Origins would not overwhelm Knowledge and that the l a b e l would be a s u f f i c i e n t t r i g g e r . THE LITERARY MATERIAL Lite r a t u r e The choice of l i t e r a r y material r e f l e c t e d my personal interests and the general need fo r more knowledge of l i t e r a r y responses. Insofar as the study treated Canadian c u l t u r a l questions, the choice recognized a proposition put by George Woodcock: To expound the Canadian i d e n t i t y i n merely p o l i t i c a l or s o c i o l o g i c a l terms i s , i n the l a s t resort, to t a l k i n abstractions; i f we wish to f e e l concretely and imaginatively what i t means, we have to turn to our writers . . . who have given form to our experience of the land, who have put Canada into our minds and man within i t as l i v i n g imaginative e n t i t i e s . g [ i t a l i c s mine] L i t e r a r y material, then, served a dual purpose: providing works i n themselves worthy of study as response objects; and providing thresholds to broader, c u l t u r a l l y determined, attitudes. The fact that i n d i v i d u a l students respond d i f f e r e n t l y to given works did not pose an obstacle to t h i s study.^ A 69 p a t t e r n o f response a c r o s s s t u d e n t s was a n t i c i p a t e d f o r two r e a s o n s : o t h e r r e s e a r c h shows t h a t common p a t t e r n s o f r e s p o n s e do emerge over and above i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s ; and s u f f i -c i e n t numbers o f s t u d e n t s were t o re s p o n d t o each poem t o ensure t h e emergence o f any r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p a t t e r n . P o e t r y G e n e r a l The r e a s o n s f o r u s i n g poems as l i t e r a r y r e s p o n s e o b j e c t s i n c l u d e d : my own i n t e r e s t s ; t h e c e n t r a l i t y o f p o e t r y i n E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e ; i t s h i g h and l o n g - h e l d p l a c e i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e o f each s o u r c e c o u n t r y ; t h e f a c t t h a t p o e t r y i s t h e genre r e c e i v i n g g r e a t e s t a t t e n t i o n as Canadian l i t e r a t u r e i n Canadian s c h o o l s ; ^ t h e p a r t i c u l a r need f o r d e v e l o p i n g more s u c c e s s f u l i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s i n p o e t r y ; p o e t r y ' s f r e -quent (as seen i n d e s c r i p t i v e l a n d s c a p e p o e t r y ) l a c k o f o v e r t message, a q u a l i t y w hich met t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l need t o open response t o t h e i n f l u e n c e s o f p r i o r a t t i t u d e as much as p o s s i b l e ; and i t s f r e q u e n t b r e v i t y , w hich o f t e n made p o s s i b l e t h e p r e s e n -t a t i o n o f complete works o r u n i f i e d s e c t i o n s o f works, enhancing 7 c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y and s t a b i l i z i n g r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s . ' Poem Type R u r a l Landscape P o e t r y R u r a l l a n d s c a p e p o e t r y r e f l e c t s an i m p o r t a n t p o e t i c t r a d i t i o n i n each s o u r c e c o u n t r y ; b o t h have been d e e p l y p r e -7© o c c u p i e d w i t h l a n d s c a p e . R u r a l l a n d s c a p e p r o v i d e d , t o o , a d i r e c t approach t o t r a n s f e r ; s t u d e n t s a r e l i k e l y t o share a v i e w o f l a n d s c a p e w i t h a poet "before t h e y s h a r e , s a y, h i s s a t i r i c a l v i e w o f s o c i a l mores. F u r t h e r , i t i s a x i o m a t i c o f e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y t h a t v a r i a b l e s o f i n t e r e s t be i s o l a t e d and t h a t e x t r a n e o u s v a r i a b l e s be e l i m i n a t e d . R e s t r i c t i n g t h e sample t o d e s c r i p t i v e l a n d -scape poems b e s t s e r v e d t h i s d u a l purpose. A f t e r a l l , l a n d -scape i s perhaps t h e most c l e a r - c u t o f t h e c o n t e n t f a c t o r s d i s t i n g u i s h i n g poems and t h e one most o f t e n e x i s t i n g a l o n e ( r e l a t i v e l y s p e a k i n g ) i n poems. Moreover, i t s p i c t o r i a l q u a l i t y makes p a i r i n g much e a s i e r t h a n w i t h , f o r i n s t a n c e , poems d e p i c t i n g human c h a r a c t e r s . A c c o r d i n g l y , l a n d s c a p e was t h e b e s t and p o s s i b l y t h e o n l y c r i t e r i o n f o r c o n t e n t s e l e c t i o n which would admit poems s u f f i c i e n t i n number and a l i k e i n t y p e t o p r o v i d e s a t i s f a c t o r y poem s e t s f o r t h e s t u d y . As w e l l , u s i n g r e c o g n i z a b l e l a n d s c a p e as a p r i m a r y i d e n t i f y i n g c r i t e r i o n f o r O r i g i n s a v o i d e d t h e problems t h a t b i r t h - p l a c e , u p b r i n g i n g , e t c * , pose t o i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f o r i g i n s by a u t h o r . A f i n a l and p r o b a b l y overwhelming argument f o r u s i n g l a n d s c a p e poems was t h a t t h e y produced, i n p i l o t s t u d i e s , r e s p o n s e s more c l e a r - c u t t h a n d i d poems w i t h o t h e r , o r mixed, s u b j e c t s . D e s c r i p t i v e Landscape The r e s t r i c t i o n t o m a i n l y d e s c r i p t i v e poems was n e c e s s a r y so t h a t c e r t a i n c o n t e n t v a r i a b l e s w h i c h o f t e n o c c u r i n p o e t i c l a n d s c a p e s and which a r e i n them s e l v e s p o w e r f u l i n f l u -ences on response c o u l d be e l i m i n a t e d . Other i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have shown, and p i l o t s t u d i e s f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h showed, t h e need t o e l i m i n a t e poems which c o n t a i n , t o any major e x t e n t : a s t r o n g n a r r a t i v e o r d r a m a t i c a c t i o n ; a f o c u s on human c h a r a c t e r or on a n i m a l s ; humour; an o v e r t p a t r i o t i c message; o r o v e r t Q d i d a c t i c i s m . Poems c o n t a i n i n g such elements were a c c e p t e d f o r use o n l y where t h e trou b l e s o m e elements seemed t o l i e i n b a l a n c e between p a i r s o r where d e s c r i p t i v e elements appeared t o o v e r -whelm them. Such a poem p a i r was " P r a i r i e Bred'^'^Canterbury" (see A p p e n d i x I , A ) . The d e s c r i p t i v e c r i t e r i o n a l s o met t h e need f o r r e l a t i v e l y u n s t r u c t u r e d response o b j e c t s . The l e s s s t r u c t u r e d 9 r e s p o n s e o b j e c t s a r e , the more re s p o n s e w i l l r e v e a l a t t i t u d e s . D e s c r i p t i v e l a n d s c a p e poems u s u a l l y a l l o w , w i t h i n and beyond t h e i r m a n i f e s t c o n t e n t and form, c o n s i d e r a b l e scope f o r p e r -s o n a l r e f l e c t i o n . S i m p le Content R e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e p o e t r y was chosen i n o r d e r t h a t " r e a d i n g " o r "comprehension" d i f f i c u l t i e s would not r e s t r i c t " a c c e s s " t o t h e poems or a c t o t h e r w i s e (as t h e y d i d i n one p i l o t 72 s t u d y ) as i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s . A l t h o u g h t h e n a t u r e and r o l e o f "comprehension" i s p o o r l y u n d e r s t o o d i t does appear l i k e l y t h a t ease o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g w i l l promote a t t i t u d i n a l e f f e c t s and f u l l n e s s o f re s p o n s e f o r most s t u d e n t s . 1 0 B o t h a r e e s p e c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e w i t h immediate-response t e c h n i q u e s . C h o o s i n g s i m p l e poems (and s u p p l y i n g g l o s s a r i e s and o t h e r r e a d i n g a s s i s t a n c e ) a l s o e l i m i n a t e d any need t o attempt s o - c a l l e d "comprehension t e s t i n g " f o r each poem. Not o n l y i s th e v a l i d i t y and u t i l i t y o f such t e s t i n g h i g h l y dubious w i t h r e s p e c t t o p o e t r y but t o t e s t f o r comprehension would be t o i n -t r o d u c e an atmosphere o f " e x a m i n a t i o n " t h a t I wi s h e d t o a v o i d . Freedom from t h e " r i g h t - a n s w e r " syndrome o r o t h e r p r e s s u r e s i s p r o b a b l y a p r e c o n d i t i o n o f f r e e , f r a n k r e s p o n s e . 1 1 The d e c i s i o n f o r s i m p l i c i t y would n o t , i t was assumed, mean any l o s s i n terms o f poem " a t t r a c t i v e n e s s " o r " a p p r o p r i a t e -n e s s " f o r s t u d e n t s . F o r one t h i n g t h e r e i s r e s e a r c h e v i d e n c e t h a t a poem " l i k e d " a t one grade l e v e l w i l l be l i k e d two o r 12 t h r e e l e v e l s above o r below t h a t l e v e l . F o r a n o t h e r , poem q u a l i t y i s n o t gauged by a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s to. grade l e v e l ; good o r g r e a t poems can be s i m p l e poems. Si m p l e Form By c a r r y i n g s i m p l i c i t y t o form, t h e l a t t e r * s e f f e c t s as an e x t r a n e o u s v a r i a b l e c o u l d a l s o be reduc e d . F o r m a l com-p l e x i t y might w e l l have obs c u r e d t h e l a n d s c a p e c o n t e n t . S i m p l i c i t y i n form was judged i n the l i g h t o f t h e s e v e r a l s t u d i e s showing t h a t t h e f o r m a l f e a t u r e s most a p p e a l i n g t o s t u d e n t s i n c l u d e " s i m p l e s t y l e , " " c o n c r e t e and c l e a r language and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , " " c l a r i t y , " 11 o b v i o u s n e s s , " and " o r d e r . The p r e s e n t s t u d y was not a b s o l u t e l y r e s t r i c t e d t o s uch poems, however. S i n c e c o n t e n t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d as b e i n g a more p o w e r f u l v a r i a b l e t h a n form and s i n c e p a i r i n g o f poems f o r m a l l y a l i k e s h o u l d e l i m i n a t e form as a v a r i a b l e ( e v e n though th e poems may be f o r m a l l y complex), a p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l - m a t c h e d p a i r o f 1 4 poems was not r e j e c t e d on grounds o f f o r m a l c o m p l e x i t y ( e . g . " M o o n d a n c e " / " H i l l C o u n t r y " ) . P e r i o d From Which Drawn: "The P o e t r y o f t h e ' 3 0 s , and A f t e r " The poem sample was r e s t r i c t e d t o r e l a t i v e l y modern works, f o r s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . F i r s t , t h e r e s u l t s o f a s t u d y by Andrews suggest t h a t a s i n g l e p e r i o d s h o u l d be chosen i n o r d e r t o a v o i d c o n f o u n d i n g v a r i a b l e s by c r o s s - p e r i o d p a i r i n g . ' ' " ^ Second, l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y i n Canada and New Z e a l a n d o f f e r e d a n e a t l y d e f i n e d p e r i o d , t h e happy c o i n c i d e n c e i n development ( a l r e a d y t o u c h e d upon) s t r o n g l y recommending t h e 1 9 3 0 s as t h e p o i n t a t w h i c h t o b e g i n s a m p l i n g . T h i r d , r e f l e c t i n g t h i s l i t e r -a r y development, t h e New Z e a l a n d s c h o o l a n t h o l o g i e s a r e l a r g e l y r e s t r i c t e d t o "modern" p o e t r y ; t h e more r e c e n t C anadian a n t h o l o -g i e s o n l y s l i g h t l y l e s s so. To sample from t h i s p e r i o d was, a c c o r d i n g l y , t o r e l a t e t o t h e a n t h o l o g i e s and so o b t a i n b o t h a 74 s p e c i a l r e l e v a n c e t o t e a c h e r needs and, r o u g h l y , a r e a d i n g -l e v e l check. The p e r i o d from which any poems a r e drawn w i l l have an e f f e c t on p r e f e r e n c e s and r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s . Many t e a c h e r s and some s t u d i e s have, f o r example, a f f i r m e d t h e g r e a t e r popu-l a r i t y o f modern p o e t r y . 1 ^ The c o n c l u s i o n s one draws from t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y must be q u a l i f i e d by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s a m p l i n g p e r i o d . The Number o f Poems Three c o n s i d e r a t i o n s governed th e number o f poems chosen. F i r s t , t h e r e s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e a r e a s o n a b l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n from each c o u n t r y — t h o u g h i t i s con-ceded and s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e f i n a l sample i s open t o t h e r e a d e r ' s own sense o f what i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f each c o u n t r y . Second, t h e r e s h o u l d be "enough poems t o p e r m i t p a t t e r n s o f r e s p o n s e t o emerge over and above e f f e c t s p e c u l i a r t o d i f f e r e n t poems. T h i r d , t h e number s h o u l d not be so g r e a t as t o make t h e experiment unmanageable ( w i t h o u t the s u p p o r t o f a r e s e a r c h team). The chosen number—24 poems o r 12 p a i r s -seemed t o b a l a n c e t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . The even number a l l o w e d t h e Canadian sample t o be s p l i t e q u a l l y i n t o t h e RC and BC g r o u p i n g s . The Need t o P a i r Poems I n f o r m a t i o n t h a t had t o be g i v e n i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n s r u l e d out f u r t h e r s e s s i o n s w i t h t h e same s t u d e n t s . W i t h j u s t one s i t t i n g , t h e o n l y p r a c t i c a l way t o have s t u d e n t s r e s p o n d t o t h e poems as f u l l y as p o s s i b l e was t o p r e s e n t a minimum number of poems. Two, d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on the key v a r i -a b l e s , was t h e minimum. There a r e many p r e c e d e n t s and recom-1 7 mendations f o r t h i s p r o c e d u r e . C e r t a i n a n a l y t i c a l advantages a l s o ensued from i t . M a t c h i n g t h e Poems The Need t o Match (by Content) The d e c i s i o n t o match poems was made m a i n l y t o reduce the e f f e c t s o f t h e most p o w e r f u l v a r i a b l e , c o n t e n t , as i t i n f l u -ences r e s p o n s e t o a p a r t i c u l a r t o p i c . Reducing t h i s i n f l u e n c e s h o u l d have i n c r e a s e d t h e chances t h a t any d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t i n g t o g e n e r a l t r a n s f e r and p r i o r - a t t i t u d e would emerge. I f match-i n g had not been c a r r i e d out t h e number o f poems t e s t e d would have had t o be f a r g r e a t e r i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e g e n e r a l i z a b l e r e s u l t s . M a t c h i n g cannot be a b s o l u t e . That f a c t was, i n d e e d , a c o n d i t i o n upon which t h i s s t u d y r e l i e d . ( F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f the r e c e n t w e l l - a n n o u n c e d IEA d i f f i c u l t y i n "matching" poems, see Appendix I , B.) M a t c h i n g on Other V a r i a b l e s W h i l e c o n t e n t f a c t o r s made up t h e p r i m a r y c r i t e r i a f o r m a t c h i n g , an e f f o r t was made t o ensure l i k e n e s s i n such o t h e r elements as l e v e l o f d i f f i c u l t y , and l e n g t h . Independent O p i n i o n on t h e P a i r s O f f e r e d There a r e no a b s o l u t e c r i t e r i a by wh i c h t o match poems. My i n i t i a l p a i r i n g s were s u b m i t t e d t o my a d v i s o r y committee f o r t h e i r o p i n i o n s . Where s u b s t a n t i a l o b j e c t i o n s were r a i s e d t o t h e use o f any p a r t i c u l a r poem s e t , t h a t s e t was withdrawn. Sampling P r o c e d u r e s ( P o e t r y ) I n i t i a l s e a r c h e s f o r s u i t a b l e m a t e r i a l were made i n grade t w e l v e Canadian and New Z e a l a n d s c h o o l a n t h o l o g i e s . To reduce o r e l i m i n a t e s t u d e n t f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h poems, t o p r o v i d e BC r e g i o n a l m a t e r i a l , and t o produce enough poems t o make 1 2 "good" p a i r s p o s s i b l e , t h e s e a r c h was t a k e n beyond the s c h o o l a n t h o l o g i e s ( s ee B i b l i o g r a p h y , Sources o f Poems). Though o n l y 5 o f the f i n a l 1 2 Canadian poems came from t h e s c h o o l t e x t s , t h e y s e r v e d as a g u i d e t o t h e maximum a c c e p t a b l e " r e a d i n g - d i f f i c u l t y " l e v e l s i n a l l poem samples. They a l s o r e i n f o r c e d c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y and r e l e v a n c e t o t e a c h e r needs by m a i n t a i n i n g a l i n k w i t h s c h o o l m a t e r i a l . S p e c i a l c a r e was t a k e n t o see t h a t no poems from Canadian s c h o o l t e x t s were used w i t h c l a s s e s w h i c h were a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e t e x t . (See below, p. 8 7 , S t u d e n t F a m i l i a r i t y W i t h , and Knowledge o f , Poems.) Over 3 5 0 poems ( o r s e l f - c o n t a i n e d s e c t i o n s o f l o n g poems) t h a t met t h e d e s c r i p t i v e l a n d s c a p e c r i t e r i o n and which 77 were not l o n g e r t h a n about 4-0 l i n e s o r s h o r t e r t h a n 5 were c o p i e d and checked a g a i n f o r s u i t a b i l i t y . About 2 5 0 s u r v i v e d t h e second s c r u t i n y . R e f e r e n c e t o p l a c e names d i s q u a l i f i e d some poems--as v i o l a t i n g t h e c o n t r o l on Knowledge. Some o t h e r poems t h a t p r e s e n t e d t h e same d i f f i c u l t y were r e t a i n e d by my r e p l a c i n g , w h i l e r e t a i n i n g t h e i r sense, one o r two words. My committee was asked t o judge t h e rep l a c e m e n t word's adequacy i n t h e ( l a t e r ) s h o r t - l i s t . (Some examples o f t h e changes a r e shown i n Appe n d i x I, A.) Some m a t e r i a l was r e t a i n e d which might g i v e away O r i g i n s t o a w e l l - r e a d i n d i v i d u a l s e e k i n g t o f i n d t h e same. To e l i m i n a t e a l l such r e f e r e n c e s would have been t o deny d i s -t i n c t i v e n e s s i n l a n d s c a p e and t o deny, t h e r e f o r e , t h e terms o f t h i s s t u d y . B e s i d e s , t h e i m p o r t a n t r e f e r e n c e t o a " r a b b i t e r " i n a New Z e a l a n d poem d i d n o t , i n i t s e l f , seem t o persuade Canadian p i l o t s t u d e n t s t h a t t h e poem was f o r e i g n . I f t h e y thought t h e poem t o be Canadian and t h e term seemed s t r a n g e t o them i t was r a t i o n a l i z e d as a r c h a i c o r " E a s t e r n " . The 2 5 0 s u r v i v i n g poems were t h e n p l a c e d under t h e c a t e g o r i e s t h e i r c o n t e n t s u g g e s t e d . C a t e g o r i e s l i k e : M o u n t a i n s , Sea-Coast, The Seasons, and The D r y - B e l t emerged. From w i t h i n t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e poem p a i r s were assembled, r e g a r d l e s s o f how w e l l each c a t e g o r y was r e p r e s e n t e d (though i n f a c t t h e f i n a l sample cov e r e d scenes o f w i n t e r c o l d , mountain and v a l l e y , p l a i n s , l a k e and stream, s e a - c o a s t , e s t u a r y , and h a r b o u r ; and two n a t i o n a l "panoramas"). Of 20 p a i r s f i n a l l y -chosen f o r t h e i r m e r i t (as p a i r s ) 12 were randomly s e l e c t e d . (Response d a t a a t t e s t e d t o t h e i r m e r i t , see below, p. 105, The N e u t r a l i t y o f t h e Poem Base.) THE STUDENT SAMPLE The S c h o o l s The Vancouver a r e a was chosen m a i n l y f o r l o g i s t i c c o n v e n i e n c e . There was a n o t h e r advantage: Vancouver, as a B r i t i s h Columbia a r e a , r e p r e s e n t s a p a r t o f Canada wh i c h t h e S t e w a r t s u r v e y i n d i c a t e s i s one o f t h e l e a s t a c t i v e i n t e a c h i n g 18 Canadian l i t e r a t u r e . Problems o f f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h poems mi g h t , t h e r e f o r e , have been redu c e d . P a r t i c u l a r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s were l a r g e l y d i c t a t e d by s c h o o l board p o l i c i e s . However, a good b a l a n c e o f t h e p o s s i b l e g e o g r a p h i c and s o c i o e c o n o m i c a r e a s was a c h i e v e d , an e q u a l number o f c l a s s e s b e i n g t a k e n from t h e West Vancouver, P o r t C o q u i t l a m , Burnaby, and D e l t a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s . The Grade L e v e l S c h o o l p r e f e r e n c e s d i c t a t e d t h e grade 11 l e v e l . There were many r e a s o n s f o r c h o o s i n g a s e n i o r l e v e l . F i r s t , t h e s e n i o r secondary y e a r s a r e t h e ones i n which i n d i g e n o u s l i t e r a t u r e r e c e i v e s g r e a t e s t s t r e s s b o t h i n t e r -19 n a t i o n a l l y and i n Canada. y Second, p i l o t s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f r e e -r e s p o n s e t e c h n i q u e would y i e l d more from s e n i o r c l a s s e s . P i l o t grade 12 c l a s s e s e x h i b i t e d a r i c h e r r e s p o n s e r e p e r t o r y and d i s p l a y e d g r e a t e r ease and s e r i o u s n e s s i n t h e n o n - t e a c h i n g s i t u a t i o n t h a n p i l o t grade 10 s t u d e n t s . One r e a s o n f o r t h e grade 12 d i s p o s i t i o n may have been t h a t , as shown by w i d e s p r e a d r e s e a r c h i n t o p r e f e r e n c e s , i n c r e a s i n g age r e n d e r s s t u d e n t s more r e c e p t i v e t o n a t u r e p o e t r y and t o t h e c o n t e n t o f r e f l e c t i v e 20 l y r i c p o e t r y g e n e r a l l y . A n o t h e r r e a s o n might have been a g r e a t e r sympathy amongst s e n i o r s t u d e n t s f o r u n i v e r s i t y r e -s e a r c h ; y e t a n o t h e r t h e i r g r e a t e r f a c i l i t y i n w r i t i n g . T h i r d , o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s s u ggest t h a t , w h i l e t h e " p r e o c c u p a t i o n s o f t h e r e a d e r a r e i m p o r t a n t i n g r e d i e n t s i n l i t e r a r y r e s p o n s e , p r e f e r e n c e , and u n d e r s t a n d i n g " a t a l l age l e v e l s , t h e o l d e r the s t u d e n t th e more d e f i n i t e and s t a b l e h i s 21 r e s p o n s e tends t o be. He w i l l y i e l d i n c r e a s i n g l y c l e a r - c u t , c o n s i s t e n t , r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s . F o u r t h , two i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e s were l i k e l y t o be maximized w i t h an o l d e r group. One was Deduced Knowledge as t h a t might p a r t l y depend upon h e i g h t e n e d l i t e r a r y s o p h i s t i -c a t i o n . The second was " t r a n s f e r " as t h a t p r o b a b l y i n c r e a s e s w i t h e x p e r i e n c e i n r e g i o n a l and C anadian l a n d s c a p e ( d i r e c t l y and t h r o u g h l i t e r a t u r e ) . F i f t h , s i n c e i n t e r e s t s and c r i t i c a l r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s s t a b i l i z e a f t e r about age 16, t h e o l d e r s t u d e n t s a r e on t h e 80 22 t h r e s h o l d o f a d u l t r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s . Grade 11 t h u s o f f e r e d a g l i m p s e o f two w o r l d s : p o i n t i n g back t h r o u g h t h e g r a d e - s c h o o l y e a r s and f o r w a r d t o u n i v e r s i t y and a d u l t h o o d . P a r t l y f o r t h i s r e a s o n t h e most s e n i o r s c h o o l grade was one o f t h e two l e v e l s t e s t e d i n t h e IEA s t u d y . F i n a l l y , c h o o s i n g from one e x t r e m i t y o f t h e secondary-s c h o o l grade l e v e l s l e f t ample room f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h a t a l e v e l c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from t h a t used i n t h i s s t u d y . Sample S i z e ( S t u d e n t ) Sample s i z e was s e t t o meet two r e l a t e d r e q u i r e m e n t s . F i r s t , r e l a t i v e t o t h e number of independent v a r i a b l e s b e i n g m a n i p u l a t e d , s u f f i c i e n t s t u d e n t s must re s p o n d t o each poem p a i r t o a l l o w s i g n i f i c a n t r e s ponse p a t t e r n s t o emerge. Second, s t u d e n t numbers must be s u f f i c i e n t t o produce r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s t h a t w i l l be b o t h r e l i a b l e and c o n s i d e r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e g i v e n s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n . S i n c e l i t e r a r y r e s p onse has been shown as a h i g h l y 2 3 p e r s o n a l phenomenon, s t u d e n t sample s i z e was l a r g e . J The f i g u r e , 500-600, was d e c i d e d upon i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e s t a t i s t i c s and d e s i g n s p e c i a l i s t s i n t h e F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. The f i g u r e compares w e l l w i t h t h a t used i n s i m i l a r s t u d i e s . I n t a c t Groups S c h o o l and. s c h o o l h o a r d p r a c t i c e s d i c t a t e d t h a t i n t a c t c l a s s e s he used. T h i s was not a problem i n t h a t each s t u d y group was c o n t r o l l e d w i t h i n i t s e l f . I n t a c t c l a s s e x p e r i -m e n t a t i o n may even prove t o be a p o s i t i v e advantage i n com-m u n i c a t i n g r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s t o t e a c h e r s . I n d i v i d u a l S t u d e n t s W i t h i n c l a s s e s c e r t a i n s t u d e n t s were t o be e l i m i n a t e d , as a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d . ( F o r s p e c i f i c i n s t r u m e n t s and p r o c e d u r e s , see below, p. 87 Student F a m i l i a r i t y W i t h , and Knowledge o f , Poems.) E l i m i n a t e d s t u d e n t s d i d , i n f a c t , undergo t h e e x p e r i -m e n t a l p r o c e d u r e s : t h e i r d e s i g n a t i o n depended upon i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y gave d u r i n g such p r o c e d u r e s . There was no v i s i b l e s e g r e -g a t i o n . TAKING THE EXPERIMENT INTO THE SCHOOLS Arrangements w i t h C l a s s Teachers F o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s c h o o l boards and p r i n c i p a l s , i n d i v i d u a l c l a s s t e a c h e r s were c o n t a c t e d , t hanked f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i n f o r m e d o f t h e n a t u r e of t h e experiment and asked t o p r o v i d e : a c l a s s l i s t , g r o s s i n f o r m a -t i o n on s t u d e n t O r i g i n s , assessments o f p o s s i b l e poem f a m i l i a r -i t y , and a few o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e t a i l s . (See App e n d i x I I , A, I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Teachers.) 82 The need f o r t e a c h e r r e t i c e n c e v i s - a - v i s t h e c l a s s was s t r e s s e d . T h i s need emerged i n a p i l o t s t u d y where one t e a c h e r , i n i n t r o d u c i n g t h e r e s e a r c h e r , i n a d v e r t e n t l y gave i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t v i o l a t e d t h e Denied Knowledge and non-Awareness c o n d i t i o n s . C l a s s r o o m P r o c e d u r e s O v e r a l l Time Scheme Poem s e t s were p r e s e n t e d t o c l a s s e s m a i n l y d u r i n g t h e morning p e r i o d s — t o maximize and s t a n d a r d i z e s t u d e n t f r e s h n e s s and r e c e p t i v i t y . Each poem p a i r was p r e s e n t e d t w i c e t o c o u n t e r p o s s i b l e o r d e r e f f e c t s and t o i n c r e a s e s t u d e n t numbers p e r poem-pair. Work w i t h c l a s s e s i n t h e s c h o o l s c o v e r e d t h e month of A p r i l 1975. I n s t r u m e n t Format I n s t r u m e n t format was s t a n d a r d i z e d and i n f o r m a l : t h e oh. f i r s t because format does a f f e c t r e s p o n s e ; t h e second t o a v o i d an e x a m i n a t i o n a t m o s p h e r e . ^ F o r a c h r o n o l o g i c a l summary o f p r o c e d u r e s d i s c u s s e d from t h i s p o i n t on, see Appendix I I I . To a v o i d d i s t r a c t i n g t h e c l a s s by h a n d i n g out each 83 i n s t r u m e n t as i t was r e q u i r e d , forms were bound i n b o o k l e t s . I t was n e c e s s a r y t o c r e a t e two b o o k l e t s so t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n poem l a b e l l i n g would not be o b s e r v e d d u r i n g any c l a s s i n t e r -a c t i o n i n t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y s t a g e s , and so t h a t t h e f r e e r e s p o n s e s t a g e c o u l d be completed w i t h o u t the l a t e r i n s t r u m e n t s b e i n g seen ( t h e y might have i n f l u e n c e d t h e e a r l i e r f r e e r e s p o n s e ) . I n t e g r i t y o f response t o t h e l a t e r i n s t r u m e n t s , w h i c h was not so i m p o r t a n t , was encouraged by a s k i n g t h a t s t u d e n t s not move on t o a new page b e f o r e c o m p l e t i n g t h e one t h e y were on (see Appendix I I , F, I n s t r u c t i o n Sheet, B o o k l e t I I ) . Form packages were numbered i n advance. Numbers were keyed, randomly, t o s t u d e n t names from t h e c l a s s l i s t s . There were s e v e r a l r e a s o n s f o r t h i s p r o c e d u r e . F i r s t i t f a c i l i -t a t e d random g r o u p i n g (and b l o c k i n g on s e x — s e e below, p. 166). Second, i t was i n t e n d e d t o a s s u r e anonymity and s o , presumably, encourage f r a n k n e s s . The s t u d e n t s were t o l d t h a t o n l y I would ever know what name cor r e s p o n d e d t o what number and t h a t I needed t o know o n l y because I might w i s h t o ask a s t u d e n t about a p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g p o i n t he had made. (See Ap p e n d i x I I , B.) Once t h a t t a s k i s complete t h e c l a s s l i s t s w i l l be d e s t r o y e d . T h i r d , numbering a s s i s t e d d a t a p r o c e s s i n g : even numbers were used f o r s t u d e n t s i n t h e G i v e n Knowledge c o n d i t i o n , odd numbers f o r s t u d e n t s who were Denied Knowledge. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o S t u d e n t s The s t u d e n t i n t r o d u c t o r y form (Appendix I I , B) was 84 d e s i g n e d t o e s t a b l i s h the s t u d y as i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e s t u d e n t s , t o o r i e n t a t e them t o t h e i r t a s k , t o encourage f r a n k n e s s i n res p o n s e ( b o t h by s t r e s s i n g i t s i m p o r t a n c e and by a l l a y i n g e x a m i n a t i o n f e a r s and a s s u r i n g anonymity) and t o p r o v i d e t h e f i r s t s e t o f i n s t r u c t i o n s . The l a t t e r p e r t a i n e d t o s e a t i n g and th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f B o o k l e t I . P r e s e n t a t i o n o f Poems Poems were p r e s e n t e d u s u a l l y w i t h t i t l e b ut never w i t h t h e p o e t ' s name. T i t l e s d i d not appear o r were a l t e r e d when, as w i t h t h e p l a c e name Vancouver, i t g r o s s l y v i o l a t e d t h e Denied Knowledge c o n d i t i o n ( s ee Appendix I , A ) . As a l r e a d y i n d i c a t e d some poems were p r e s e n t e d w i t h one o r two words r e p l a c e d , f o r t h e same r e a s o n (see above, p. 77). A p o e t ' s name (and even n a t i o n a l i t y ) i s p r o b a b l y b e t t e r known t h a n h i s i n d i v i d u a l works. Two s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t awareness o f t h e p o e t ' s name, when m a n i p u l a t e d as a v a r i -26 a b l e , does a f f e c t r e s p o n s e . Other r e s e a r c h e r s , i n c l u d i n g R i c h a r d s , have a l s o o m i t t e d t h e p o e t ' s name i n p r e s e n t i n g h i s 27 works. ' Where words o r p h r a s e s posed p o t e n t i a l b a r r i e r s t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n any g i v e n poem, a g l o s s a r y was p r i n t e d a t t h e poem's f o o t t o g i v e s u g g e s t e d meanings. The v a s t m a j o r i t y o f p i l o t s t u d e n t s r e p o r t e d t h a t such g l o s s a r i e s were a h e l p . Of the few who r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e g l o s s a r i e s were not n e c e s s a r y , o n l y two showed s i g n s o f b e i n g u p s e t by them. My committee was 85 asked t o pass judgment on t h e need t o g i v e meanings i n any g i v e n case and on t h e m e a n i n g s / i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s I a c t u a l l y o f f e r e d . The RC poem p r e s e n t e d t o s t u d e n t s i n t h e G i v e n Knowledge c o n d i t i o n c a r r i e d t h e l a b e l "A Canadian Poem" i n b r a c k e t s under and t o t h e r i g h t o f t h e t i t l e . The BC poem c a r r i e d , s i m i l a r l y , t h e l a b e l "A B.C. Poem." The NZ poem p r e s e n t e d i n t h e G i v e n Knowledge c o n d i t i o n c a r r i e d t h e l a b e l "Non-Canadian. 1 1 . F o l l o w i n g a c c e p t e d t h e o r y , each poem p a i r was p r e -s e n t e d i n a d i f f e r e n t o r d e r a t i t s two p r e s e n t a t i o n s . P i l o t work f o r t h i s s t u d y i n d i c a t e d t h a t s t u d e n t s would w r i t e more on the f i r s t poem r e a d , e s p e c i a l l y when i t was a l s o t h e most popu-l a r poem. Ot h e r , f i n e r e f f e c t s might a l s o have r e s u l t e d from o r d e r . (They w i l l be pursued i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h — s e e below, p. 167 .) The r e a d i n g o r d e r s were as f o l l o w s : Order 1 (The Canadian Poem F i r s t ) : Reader 1 (Poem 1, Poem 2), Reader 2 (Poem 1, Poem 2). Order 2 (The New Z e a l a n d Poem F i r s t ) : Reader 1 (Poem 2, Poem 1), Reader 2 (Poem 2, Poem 1). E l i m i n a t i o n o f T e a c h i n g V a r i a b l e s Because t e a c h i n g - e f f e c t s c o n s t i t u t e v e r y p o w e r f u l 28 v a r i a b l e s w h i c h would g r a v e l y t h r e a t e n t h e e x p e r i m e n t , t h e poems were not " t a u g h t " o t h e r t h a n i n d i r e c t l y t h r o u g h t h e r e a d i n g s and g l o s s a r i e s . S t u d e n t s were aware t h a t a " f r e e " r e s p o n s e was t h e p r i n c i p a l r e q u i r e m e n t (see Appendix I I , B ) . The Readings The s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e d t h e poems a u r a l l y as w e l l as v i s u a l l y . Each poem was r e a d t w i c e : once by me (New Z e a l a n d d i a l e c t ) and once by P r o f e s s o r Frank B e r t r a m ( C a n a d i a n d i a l e c t ) , Department o f E n g l i s h E d u c a t i o n , UBC. There were s e v e r a l r e a s o n s f o r double p r e s e n t a t i o n : o r a l d e l i v e r i e s , by a d d i n g b o t h c o l o u r and i n t e r p r e t i v e s u g g e s t i o n , h e l p m i n i m i z e compre-29 h e n s i o n d i f f i c u l t i e s r e l a t e d t o s i l e n t r e a d i n g ; 7 o r a l p r e s e n t a t i o n may, i n i t s e l f , promote s t u d e n t v e r b a l i z a t i o n i n 30 response;-' r e t e n t i o n o f t h e w r i t t e n poems p e r m i t s s u p p l e -mentary and c o n t i n u e d s i l e n t r e a d i n g and c a t e r s f o r p r o b a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e c e p t i v e s t y l e between s t u d e n t s ; o r a l p r e s e n -t a t i o n o f f e r e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t each poem once i n , r o u g h l y s p e a k i n g , t h e d i a l e c t a p p r o p r i a t e t o poem O r i g i n s ; and o r a l p r e s e n t a t i o n gave f u l l e r c o n t r o l o v e r r e a d i n g o r d e r . F r e e Response I n s t r u c t i o n s t o s t u d e n t s were d e s i g n e d t o encourage freedom i n r e s p o n s e w i t h o u t s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e y i g n o r e t h e 87 poems. An e f f o r t was made t o have s t u d e n t s r e f l e c t upon and 31 " d i g e s t " the poems b e f o r e o f f e r i n g any o v e r t r e s p o n s e . Comments from some p i l o t s t u d e n t s c o n f i r m e d t h i s need. Two f o r m a l r e a d i n g s o f each poem were g i v e n and time e l a p s e d be-tween r e a d i n g s . S t u d e n t s were t o l d t h a t t h e y were under no g r e a t time p r e s s u r e (see Appendix I I , C). Response d i d not depend upon r e c a l l . S t u d e n t s were encouraged t o r e - r e a d the poems as much as t h e y wished. I n t h e i n i t i a l F r e e Response i n s t r u c t i o n s ( A ppendix I I , E) s t u d e n t s were asked t o ensure t h a t i t was always c l e a r w hich poem t h e y were r e f e r r i n g t o i n f r e e r e s p o n s e . P i l o t s t u d i e s showed t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r t h i s . S t u d e n t F a m i l i a r i t y W i t h , and Knowledge of", Poems S e v e r a l s t e p s were t a k e n t o check upon, and c o n t r o l , f a m i l i a r i t y and Knowledge. F i r s t , s a m p l i n g p r o c e d u r e s were c a l c u l a t e d t o produce u n f a m i l i a r poems and t e a c h e r s p r e v i e w e d t h e poem and a n t h o l o g y l i s t ( s e e Appendix I I , A, I n t r o d u c t i o n t o T e a c h e r s ) . Second, c l a s s e s were asked, a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f each e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n , whether t h e y had h e a r d about t h e s t u d y from anyone. Any i n d i v i d u a l s who were so Aware were t o be t r a n s f e r r e d i m m e d i a t e l y t o the G i v e n Knowledge c o n d i t i o n i f t h e y were not a l r e a d y t h e r e . The e x t e n t o f t h e i r knowledge was to be gauged by i n t e r v i e w a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l p e r i o d and a d e c i s i o n made about r e t a i n i n g t h e i r r e s p o n s e d a t a . •88 T h i r d , s t u d e n t Awareness was checked i n t h e f u l l s t u d y "by t h e i n s t r u m e n t "Hunches" (Appendix I I , J) and, t h r o u g h o v e r l a p , "by the i n s t r u m e n t "What Do You Know o f These Poems?" (see below, p. 89 and Appendix I I , H). F o u r t h , t h e s u p p o r t i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e "What Do You Know o f These Poems?", i n s o f a r as i t probed f a m i l i -a r i t y , s e r v e d a t w o - f o l d purpose. P a r t l y i t checked t h a t t h e poems were i n d e e d u n f a m i l i a r (as poems—Knowledge i s o f O r i g i n s ) . Any s t u d e n t f o r whom poems were f a m i l i a r was t o be e l i m i n a t e d from t h e s t u d y . ( I n t h e ev e n t , t h e r e was o n l y one such s t u d e n t . ) And p a r t l y "What Do You Know o f These Poems?" checked t h a t s t u d e n t s i n t h e G i v e n Knowledge c o n d i t i o n d i d n o t i c e t h e l a b e l s ( t h o s e who d i d were a n a l y z e d as p a r t o f a s p e c i a l group under P o s s e s s e d Knowledge) and checked t h a t s t u d e n t s i n t h e Denied Knowledge c o n d i t i o n d i d not o t h e r w i s e have Pre-Knowledge. Any who d i d were t o be eliminated.!from t h e a n a l y s i s . S t udent O r i g i n s A s t u d e n t ' s p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e i n t h e f i v e y e a r p e r i o d p r e c e d i n g t h e s t u d y was assumed t o be an i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e : t h e d e t e r m i n a n t o f f e e l i n g f o r and a t t i t u d e towards l a n d s c a p e and t h i n g s Canadian. I t was t h e r e f o r e checked by t e a c h e r s ( see Appendix I I , A, I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Teachers) and t h r o u g h d i r e c t q u e s t i o n t o s t u d e n t s (see Appendix I I , I , " P l a c e s You Have L i v e d " ) . The f i v e y e a r p e r i o d was chosen a r b i t r a r i l y . 89, SUPPORTING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES I n t r o d u c t i o n The i n s t r u m e n t s and p r o c e d u r e s o u t l i n e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r have a l r e a d y "been d i s c u s s e d i n v a r i o u s c o n n e c t i o n s . Here t h e y a r e t r e a t e d as d i s t i n c t u n i t s . I n most cases t h e s u p p o r t i n g i n s t r u m e n t s and p r o c e d u r e s were d e s i g n e d t o promote e x p e r i m e n t a l r i g o u r . Some a l s o s e r v e d t h e p r i n c i p l e o f m u l t i p l e o p e r a t i o n a l i s m , v a l i d a t i n g ( o r i n -v a l i d a t i n g ) and e n r i c h i n g t h e c e n t r a l approach. The same p r i n c i p l e i n f o r m e d t h e c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s Scheme's m u l t i p l e probe. The p r i n c i p l e w i l l be extended f u r t h e r i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . The I n s t r u m e n t s and P r o c e d u r e s "What Do You Know o f These Poems?" (Appendix I I , H) T h i s i n s t r u m e n t a s c e r t a i n e d s t u d e n t f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e poems and Knowledge o f t h e i r O r i g i n s . I t s e r v e d a t h r e e -f o l d purpose. Two ( a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d , see above, p. 88) were: t o c o n t r o l s t u d e n t f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e poems and t o c o n t r o l Pre-Knowledge. The t h i r d was t o f i n d out whether s t u d e n t s were a b l e t o Recognize poems ( R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 1) and t o f i n d what reaso n s t h e y gave. " P l a c e s You Have L i v e d " (Appendix I I , I ) T h i s i n s t r u m e n t ( a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d , see above, p. 88 ) 90 a s c e r t a i n e d s t u d e n t O r i g i n s . I t was d e s i g n e d t o c o n t r o l RC and F o r e i g n s t u d e n t v a r i a b l e s and t o s e t up t h o s e sub-groups f o r s e p a r a t e a n a l y s i s "Hunches" (Appendix I I , J) T h i s i n s t r u m e n t a s c e r t a i n e d s t u d e n t Awareness o f t h e s t u d y ' s purpose. A l t h o u g h p i l o t work i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e e x p e r i -m e n t a l p r o c e d u r e s and i n s t r u m e n t s d i d not r e v e a l t h e s t u d y ' s p urpose, i t a l s o showed t h a t t e a c h e r s might do so i n i n t r o d u c i n g t h e s t u d y o r m y s e l f t o t h e c l a s s ( s ee c a u t i o n s d i r e c t e d t o t h e t e a c h e r i n I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Tea c h e r s , Appendix I I , A ) . I t thus seemed a d v i s a b l e t o check Awareness d i r e c t l y by q u e s t i o n n a i r e as w e l l as by t h e q u e s t i o n a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n (see above, p. 87 ). O v e r l a p w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e "What Do You Know o f These Poems?" (Appendix I I , H) p r o v i d e d a t h i r d check. "Your O p i n i o n s " (Appendix I I , K) T h i s i n s t r u m e n t a s c e r t a i n e d s t u d e n t s ' p e r s o n a l and s c h o o l e x p e r i e n c e w i t h Canadian l i t e r a t u r e . The i n s t r u m e n t was, i n t o t a l , d e s i g n e d t o c a r r y f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n t o o t h e r a t t i -t u d i n a l dimensions o f t h e Canadian l i t e r a t u r e q u e s t i o n . But s c a l e s 1 and 2 a l s o p r o v i d e d a check upon s t u d e n t f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h C anadian p o e t r y . I f an i n d i v i d u a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had a l r e a d y had a g r e a t d e a l o f c o n t a c t ( E x t e n s i v e Reading) w i t h Canadian l i t e r a t u r e ( r a t i n g s 4 and 5 on s c a l e s 1 and 2) h i s 91 r e s p o n s e s were examined s e p a r a t e l y (see below, p. 117). "Sub-Groups" T h i s p r o c e d u r e a n a l y z e d t h e r e s p o n s e s o f s t u d e n t s i n s p e c i a l g roups. The p o t e n t i a l sub-groups comprised: E x t e n s i v e Canadian Reading, Pre-Knowledge, Aware, Rest-of-Canada, and F o r e i g n , s t u d e n t s . The n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e i r e l i m i n a t i o n from t h e main sample was t o be t u r n e d t o c o m p a r a t i v e a n a l y t i c a l advantage i f t h e y p r o v e d t o be s u f f i c i e n t i n number. " W i t h i n and A c r o s s " T h i s p r o c e d u r e c o n s t i t u t e d a supplementary c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s . The main a n a l y t i c a l burden r e s t e d , because o f t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s and r e l a t i v e o b j e c t i v i t y , upon th e c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s measures a l r e a d y d e s c r i b e d . To shore up, e n r i c h , and expand upon th e Scheme's c a t e g o r i e s and t o o f f e r a l t e r n a t i v e probes w i t h o u t d i s r u p t i n g i t s a p p l i c a t i o n and cogency, p r o t o -c o l s were f u r t h e r examined w i t h i n and a c r o s s t h e Scheme's c a t e g o r i e s . Many r e s e a r c h e r s have employed such s u p p l e m e n t a r y 3 2 a n a l y s i s o r s u g g e s t e d i t . C l e a r l y , any corpus o f m a t e r i a l can be a n a l y z e d i n a g r e a t many ways. The approach W i t h i n and A c r o s s f o l l o w e d l i n e s of e n q u i r y s u g g e s t e d by o t h e r s ' i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and t h e o r i e s , by p i l o t work, and by s p e c u l a t i o n . I t s e a r c h e d o n l y f o r r e s p o n s e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s t h a t appeared t o have been a f f e c t e d d i f f e r e n t l y by the two s e t s o f independent v a r i a b l e s . Only one such m a n i f e s t a t i o n f i n a l l y emerged, Quantity of W r i t i n g (see below, p. 108). Response man i f e s t a t i o n s not so a f f e c t e d , or r e q u i r i n g very extensive a n a l y s i s i n themselves, were simply i d e n t i f i e d f o r f u t u r e research. Examples are " S i g n i f i c a n t A d j e c t i v a l s " (see below, p. 14-3) and "Transfer" (see below, p. 14-8). ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS Assumptions Many of the assumptions upon which t h i s study was b u i l t have already been defended. Where that i s so they w i l l not be c l o s e l y t r e a t e d again. The assumptions f a l l i n t o three groupings: those r e l a t i n g to the reading process and response per se; those r e l a t i n g to c u l t u r a l b i a s i n students and i n o poems; and those r e l a t i n g to c l o s e l y experimental procedures. The f i r s t group h e l d that both the poem and reader c o n t r i b u t e to response, and that a bia s i n both might be r e -qui r e d to produce a d i s t i n c t i v e response-type. I f a d i s t i n c t i v e response-type d i d appear i n Vancouver students' responses to Canadian works then that was to be a t t r i b u t e d to something c a l l e d a Canadian n a t i o n a l f e e l i n g between reader and w o r k — o r even " i d e n t i t y " i f i t occurred when the poems were not l a b e l l e d as Canadian. I d e n t i t y was assumed to be an a f f i n i t y between a student's "way of seeing t h i n g s " and a d i s t i n c t i v e s e t t i n g or v i s i o n expressed i n h i s nation's poetry. The t o t a l experiment 93 d i d n o t depend upon any c e r t a i n t y t h a t an a f f i n i t y e x i s t s . The e x i s t e n c e o f a n a t i o n a l f e e l i n g o r i d e n t i t y s h o u l d be seen as a dependent v a r i a b l e w h i c h was i n d i r e c t l y examined t h r o u g h t h e s t u d e n t s r a t h e r t h a n as an a s s u m p t i o n w h i c h would, i f i t had pro v e d f a l s e , undermine t h e ex p e r i m e n t . Not t h a t i t was u n r e a s o n a b l e t o assume a n a t i o n a l f e e l i n g o r i d e n t i t y . W i th r e s p e c t t o s t u d e n t s , p i l o t work s u g g e s t e d t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a n c e would o c c u r . Other s t u d e n t -response s t u d i e s show c u l t u r a l f o r c e s t o be a t p l a y i n o t h e r n a t i o n s , J W i t h l i t e r a r y works t h e r e i s a g e n e r a l Canadian c o n f i d e n c e t h a t a n a t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e w i l l e x p r e s s a n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y : c l a i m s s p e c i f i c t o t h e Canadian s c h o o l p r o m o t i o n have a l r e a d y been n o t e d ( see above, p. 2); and Canadian w r i t e r s have commented more g e n e r a l l y . W a t t e r s , f o r example, keys an a r t i c l e t o Emerson's statement t h a t i n d i v i d u a l n a t i o n s might p o s s e s s a unique, " o r i g i n a l r e l a t i o n to the universe.•• ^ Frye elaims t h a t "Canadian l i t e r a t u r e . . . . r e c o r d s what the Canadian i m a g i n a t i o n has r e a c t e d t o , and i t t e l l s us t h i n g s about t h i s 35 environment t h a t n o t h i n g e l s e w i l l t e l l us." • Pacey speaks o f the c r e a t i o n i n Canadian l i t e r a t u r e o f "a d i s t i n c t i v e c o n c e p t i o n o f man's l o t on t h e e a r t h . " - And Jones h o l d s out t h e p o s s i -b i l i t y o f t r a c i n g i n t h e n a t i o n ' s l i t e r a t u r e c e r t a i n elements o f a "view o f l i f e , a v i e w o f man and h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the u n i v e r s e o f a fundamental k i n d , which i s s u r e l y what we must mean by a Canadian i d e n t i t y . . . . "^7 True, t h e e x a c t n a t u r e o f t h e Canadian s e n s i b i l i t y o r v i e w o f t h i n g s i s n ever a l t o g e t h e r c l e a r . Perhaps i t i s not d e f i n e a b l e . Approaches t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f t e n r e - p h r a s e r a t h e r t h a n answer i t , as does t h i s o f J.P. Matthews: When I came t o Canada from A u s t r a l i a e i g h t e e n y e a r s ago t o u n d e r t a k e a c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y o f Canadian and A u s t r a l i a n p o e t r y , I was i m m e d i a t e l y s t r u c k by t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y d i s t i n c t i v e t a n g of t h e Canadian statement i n l i t e r a t u r e . No m a t t e r from what r e g i o n a l base i t emerged, t h e r e seemed t o be a v e r y marked a t t i t u d i n a l c o h e s i v e n e s s . . . I n b o t h n i n e t e e n t h and t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y w r i t e r s , i n a l l genres from B.C. t o t h e M a r i -t i m e s I s u g g e s t , one i s a b l e t o see a s e r i e s o f i n t e r l o c k e d r e a c t i o n s t o l i f e i n t h i s c o u n t r y . They a r e not t h e same, I would emphasize t h a t t o o o f c o u r s e , t h e way i n may be d i f f e r e n t , but t h e c o n c l u s i o n s a r e v e r y o f t e n a s t o n i s h i n g l y similar.„ Q Or t h e y c a l l down c o n t i n u e d debate r a t h e r t h a n w i d e s p r e a d agreement. S t i l l , as Matthews s u g g e s t s , t h e debates do encom-pass themes not t o o d i v e r s e : d e a l i n g w i t h h a r d s h i p s o f c l i m a t e and s e t t l e m e n t , t h e n o t i o n o f t h e g a r r i s o n and t h e w i l d e r n e s s , t h e r o c k and t h e b u t t e r f l y , s u r v i v a l and v i c t i m s , and so on. I f t h e s e themes a r e l o c a l o r r e g i o n a l r a t h e r t h a n C a n a d i a n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o meet t h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e . Of t h e t h i r d group of a s s u m p t i o n s , t h e c l o s e l y e x p e r i m e n t a l f a c t o r s , o n l y a few need f u r t h e r e x p l i c i t s t a t e m e n t . I t was assumed: t h a t t h e poems were r e a s o n a b l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f each n a t i o n and r e g i o n i n t h e p e r i o d chosen; t h a t s t u d e n t s would r e s p o n d " h o n e s t l y " and " f r a n k l y " ; t h a t s t u d e n t s ' immediat 95 f r e e , w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e s would b e a r some c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o deeper r e s p o n s e s o r t h a t t h e y would be, a t l e a s t , i n t e r e s t i n g and i m p o r t a n t t o t e a c h e r s ; and t h a t s u f f i c i e n t v a r i a n c e t o make th e s t u d y w o r t h w h i l e would be e x h i b i t e d on a t l e a s t one o f t h e c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e s . L i m i t a t i o n s I n t r o d u c t i o n As w i t h a s s u m p t i o n s , most l i m i t a t i o n s have been t r e a t e d e l s e w h e r e . L i m i t a t i o n s f a l l i n t o two c l a s s e s : t h o s e which c l o s e l y e x p e r i m e n t a l e x i g e n c i e s imposed upon t h e s t u d y and, t h e r e f o r e , upon t h e c o n c l u s i o n s one can draw from t h e s t u d y ; and t h o s e which amount t o d i s c l a i m e r s on my p a r t . E x p e r i m e n t a l D e l i m i t a t i o n s The experiment c o u l d not i n d i c a t e whether any absence o f d i s t i n c t i v e r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s was s i m p l y a measure o f s t u d e n t i n a b i l i t y t o sense and r e p o r t d i f f e r e n c e s i n h e r e n t i n t h e poem groups. R e s u l t s must be a t t r i b u t e d o n l y t o l i k e s t u d e n t s r e -spo n d i n g t o l i k e poems i n l i k e c o n d i t i o n s . The onus i s upon any one who would a p p l y t h e r e s u l t s more b r o a d l y t o show t h e grounds upon w h i c h he does so. D i f f e r e n c e s i n s t u d e n t age and g e o g r a p h i c l o c a t i o n ( n o t e p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e e x c l u s i o n o f F r e n c h Canada) might a l t e r r e s p o n s e s g r e a t l y ; as might t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n 96 of t e a c h e r v a r i a b l e s . So t o o might r e s p o n s e s he a l t e r e d by t h e absence o f an e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n o r even t h e absence o f p r e c i s e l y t h i s s t u d y ' s e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n . D e s p i t e t h e s t e p s t a k e n t o p l a y down " t e s t " c o n d i t i o n s , a l l s t u d e n t s prob-a b l y e x p e r i e n c e d "Hawthorne" i n f l u e n c e s . (These s h o u l d not have o p e r a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y between groups and c l a s s e s t o v i o l a t e the t r e a t m e n t s and c o n t r o l s . ) I t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e , n e v e r t h e -l e s s , t h a t r e s p o n s e t e n d e n c i e s would h o l d , a l t h o u g h a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o r i n d i f f e r e n t p r o p o r t i o n s , i f t h e s t u d y ' s p a r t i c u l a r c o n d i t i o n s were not f u l l y r e p l i c a t e d . The s t u d y f o c u s e d on br o a d response p a t t e r n s , not on i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e s . Any i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t , even though he might be l i k e t h o s e i n t h e s t u d y and be r e s p o n d i n g i n l i k e c o n d i t i o n s , s h o u l d n ot be e x p e c t e d t o re s p o n d a l o n g e x a c t l y t h e l i n e s d i s c o v e r e d i n t h i s s t u d y . The s t u d y d i d not examine l o n g - t e r m e f f e c t s , o r resp o n s e s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e w r i t t e n and ( m a i n l y ) "freeV" D i s c l a i m e r s Though t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s t u d y appear t o have t e a c h i n g , c u r r i c u l u m , and o t h e r i m p l i c a t i o n s , and a l t h o u g h I do make some s u g g e s t i o n s i n t h e i r l i g h t , t h e s t u d y d i d not d i r e c t l y c o n s i d e r d e s i d e r a t a i n t h o s e a r e a s . I t d e a l t i n b e h a v i o u r a l e x p e c t a t i o n s t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f t h e o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ( s u c h as v a l u e judgments) t h a t must b e a r upon d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . I do not s u g g e s t , by my f o c u s on Canadian l i t e r a t u r e , t h a t o n l y , o r m a i n l y , Canadian l i t e r a t u r e s h o u l d be t a u g h t i n Canadian s c h o o l s . That i s not my v i e w . F o r l i t e r a r y and c u l t u r a l r e a s o n s and f o r r e a s o n s r e l a t i n g t o i m a g i n a t i v e growth, i t seems t o me t h a t d e v e l o p i n g b r e a d t h and q u a l i t y o f r e a d i n g a r e t h e p r i m a r y j u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e . E q u a l l y , t h e use o f a comp a r a t i v e e x p e r i m e n t a l methodology does not suggest t h a t I b e l i e v e o n l y o r m a i n l y comparative methods be used i n s c h o o l s — t h o u g h I do, i n f a c t , g i v e them h i g h p l a c e . CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTENTS S t a t i s t i c a l Note. . . - 101 B a s i c Data 102 The Student Sample The D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Responses Over Poem P a i r s The N e u t r a l i t y o f the Poem Base The Frequency o f Scores Under Each Category S p e c i f i c F i n d i n g s ( 1 ) : R e c o g n i t i o n ( R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 1) 108 (a) The Canadian and New Z e a l a n d Poem Groups as Wholes ( i ) Denied Knowledge ( i i ) G i v e n Knowledge (b) R e c o g n i t i o n o f O r i g i n s C o n s i d e r e d as a J o i n t Event ( S t u d e n t s F u l l y D i s c r i m i n a t i n g Between t h e P a i r e d Poems) (c) R e c o g n i t i o n as I n f l u e n c e d by t h e RC/NZ and BC/NZ C o n d i t i o n s ( i ) R e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e Canadian Poems ( i i ) R e c o g n i t i o n o f the New Z e a l a n d Poems (d) S p e c i a l Notes ( i ) R e c o g n i t i o n by Those S t u d e n t s D e s i g n a t e d as H a v i n g E x t e n s i v e Canadian Reading ( i i ) R e c o g n i t i o n by t h e Student Sub-Group Rest-of-Canada (e) R e c o g n i t i o n : G e n e r a l C o n c l u s i o n and D i s c u s s i o n 119 9 9 S p e c i f i c F i n d i n g s ( 2 ) : F r e e Response: D i f f e r e n c e s I n h e r e n t i n t h e Poems (D e n i e d Knowledge) ( R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n ( 2 ) ) . , 120 (a) Comparative S c o r e s ( i ) The Canadian and New Z e a l a n d Poem Groups as Wholes ( i i ) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ C o n d i t i o n s (b) Q u a n t i t y o f W r i t i n g ( i ) The Canadian and New Z e a l a n d Poem Groups as Wholes ( i i ) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ C o n d i t i o n s ( c ) F r e e Response: I n h e r e n t D i f f e r e n c e s ; G e n e r a l C o n c l u s i o n and D i s c u s s i o n 124 S p e c i f i c F i n d i n g s ( 3 » A ) : Fr e e Response: D i f f e r e n c e s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h G i v e n Knowledge ( R e s e a r c h  Q u e s t i o n ( j ) ) 125 (a) Comparative S c o r e s ( i ) The Canadian and New Z e a l a n d Poem Groups as Wholes ( i i ) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ C o n d i t i o n s (b) Q u a n t i t y o f W r i t i n g ( i ) The Canadian and New Z e a l a n d Poem Groups as Wholes ( i i ) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ C o n d i t i o n s (c) F r e e Response: G i v e n Knowledge; G e n e r a l C o n c l u s i o n and D i s c u s s i o n 133 S p e c i f i c F i n d i n g s ( 3 » B ) : F r e e Response: D i f f e r e n c e s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h P o s s e s s e d Knowledge ( R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n (_3) ) . . . . . 134 (a) Comparative S c o r e s ( i ) The Canadian and New Z e a l a n d Poem Groups as Wholes ( i i ) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ C o n d i t i o n s 100 (t>) Quantity of W r i t i n g ( i ) The Canadian and New Zealand Poem Groups as Wholes ( i i ) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ Conditions (c) Free Response: Possessed Knowledge; General Conclusion and D i s c u s s i o n . 138 S p e c i f i c Findings (2), (3, A ) , (3, B): Free Response: General D i s c u s s i o n Over A l l Knowledge Conditions. . 14-0 (a) Some Categories Examined Separately (t>) Quantity of W r i t i n g (c) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ Conditions O v e r a l l Conclusions (The Research Questions) 14-3 S p e c i f i c Findings (4-): Free. Response: S i g n i f i c a n t A d j e c t i v a l s 14-3 S p e c i f i c Findings (5): Free Response: Transfer 14-8 (a) D i r e c t Statements (h) The Strength of Transfer (c) Some "Foreign" Students and Transfer 101 STATISTICAL NOTE Chi-Square was used as a d e s c r i p t i v e a i d , as a s h o r t -hand t o e x p r e s s degrees o f d i f f e r e n c e , r a t h e r t h a n as an i n f e r -e n t i a l d e v i c e . I t i n d i c a t e s l e v e l s o f f r e q u e n c y d i f f e r e n c e under each c a t e g o r y . I t was a p p l i e d o n l y t o a c t u a l r e s p o n s e s i n each c a t e g o r y ; i t d i d not t a k e i n t o a ccount t h e number o f s t u d e n t s who might have responded i n t h e c a t e g o r y . To use an an a l o g y , Chi-Square was employed t o h e l p i d e n t i f y t h e d i s t i n c t r i d g e s and peaks, t h e re s p o n s e s t h a t d i s c r i m i n a t e d between poems; i t says n o t h i n g d i r e c t l y o f t h e t e r r a i n from which t h o s e peaks t o o k t h e i r r i s e . Any i n f e r e n c e about t h e t e r r a i n i s made on c o n c e p t u a l , not s t a t i s t i c a l grounds. I acknowledge t h e need f o r c a u t i o n i n g e n e r a l i z i n g from such a s p e c i a l i z e d sample. Chi-Square was not employed where e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s o f e l l below 5 p e r c e l l . The d e v i c e X = n/a ( n o t a p p l i c a b l e ) i n d i c a t e s when e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s were t o o low t o t e s t d a t a t h a t o t h e r w i s e appeared w o r t h t e s t i n g . L e v e l s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e a r e i n d i c a t e d as f o l l o w s : b e t t e r t h a n ( s m a l l e r than) .10, one a s t e r i s k ; b e t t e r t h a n .05, two a s t e r i s k s ; and b e t t e r t h a n . 0 1 ,three a s t e r i s k s . (The s m a l l e r t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e v a l u e , t h e l e s s l i k e l y i t i s t h a t t h e e f f e c t i s t h e r e s u l t o f chance v a r i a t i o n s . The e f f e c t , t h e r e -f o r e , i s " b e t t e r . " ) With 1 degree o f freedom, a Chi-Square 2 2 (X ) o f 2.71 or more i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .10 l e v e l , a X o f 3.84- o r more i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 l e v e l , and a X o f 6.63 102 or more i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l . No cases o c c u r r e d where degrees o f freedom exceeded 1. I i n t e n d such p r e s e n t a t i o n t o p r o v i d e o p t i o n a l l e v e l s o f s t r i n g e n c y and t o encourage t h e r e a d e r t o make h i s own s t a t i s t i c a l i n f e r e n c e s — b o t h ends b e i n g e s p e c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t i n e x p l o r a t o r y work. The e x p l o r a t o r y n a t u r e o f t h e work and t h e conc o m i t a n t d e s i r e t o a v o i d Type I I e r r o r ( t h e r e j e c t i o n o f a t r u e h y p o t h e s i s ) a l s o e x p l a i n s t h e use, i n my d i s c u s s i o n , o f .10 as t h e o p e r a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l . I acknowledge t h a t t h e use o f extreme groups " i n f l a t e s " s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s . U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e i n d i c a t e d , Chi-Square was c a l c u l a t e d on t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f chance d i s t r i b u t i o n s . O f t e n , under G i v e n Knowledge, t h e p a r a l l e l D e n ied Knowledge f i n d i n g s might be con-s i d e r e d t o p r o v i d e a sounder base and sometimes a more s t r i n g e n t t e s t . But D e n i e d Knowledge respondees i n c l u d e d some w i t h Know-l e d g e (Deduced o r "P o s s e s s e d " Knowledge [ s e e below (1, b ) ] ) and o t h e r s who might have "sensed" a poem's Canadianness. I t was not a f u l l y n e u t r a l base. S t i l l , C hi-Square was based upon e x p e c t a t i o n s o t h e r t h a n chance when t h e e f f e c t o f t h o s e expec-t a t i o n s was i m p o r t a n t — a s when I t e s t e d f o r l a c k o f independence ( o r by, as I w i l l r e f e r t o i t , a 2 x 2 C h i - S q u a r e ) . BASIC DATA The S t u d e n t Sample A t o t a l o f 551 s t u d e n t s underwent t h e t e s t i n g p r o -cedures. The sample d e s i g n a t e d f o r c l o s e s t u d y , G r e a t e r Vancouver s t u d e n t s , amounted t o 4-77. I t w i l l be t h e "main sample" r e f e r r e d t o from t h i s p o i n t on. The BC ( o u t s i d e Vancouver a r e a ) sub-group was t o o s m a l l ( n = 33) t o t e l l whether i t s members responded d i f f e r e n t l y , as a group, from t h e Vancouver a r e a s t u d e n t s . T h e r e f o r e "Vancouver a r e a " ( n = 4-77) i n c l u d e d t h e BC sub-group. The s t u d e n t s e x c l u d e d were made up o f two groups: 4-5 (Rest-of-Canada) s t u d e n t s who had l i v e d e l s e w h e r e i n Canada f o r a l l o r p a r t o f t h e p e r i o d from and i n c l u d i n g 1970; and 29 ( F o r e i g n ) s t u d e n t s who had l i v e d o u t s i d e Canada d u r i n g a l l o r p a r t o f t h e same p e r i o d . A p a r t from t h e i r c o n s i d e r a t i o n under (1) R e c o g n i t i o n ( b e l o w ) , and t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f F o r e i g n s t u d e n t s under (5) T r a n s f e r ( b e l o w ) , a n a l y s i s o f t h e l a t t e r two groups was not f o l l o w e d t h r o u g h i n a d i r e c t f a s h i o n . The groups were t o o s m a l l . Under t h e p r e s e n t f r e e r e s p o n s e method, w i t h a s t u d e n t sample of 4-5 o r 29, response f r e q u e n c i e s i n each c a t e g o r y were t i n y . A l s o , i n t h e case o f F o r e i g n s t u d e n t s , s t u d e n t O r i g i n s were t o o d i v e r s e t o j u s t i f y s i n g l e - g r o u p t r e a t -ment. Three o t h e r groups were, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d e s i g n , d e s i g n a t e d f o r p o s s i b l e e x c l u s i o n from t h e main a n a l y s i s . One, the " E x t e n s i v e Canadian Reading" group, was examined s e p a r a t e l y under R e c o g n i t i o n . T h e r e a f t e r i t was i n c l u d e d i n the main sample because o f i t s s m a l l s i z e and because i t s members showed them s e l v e s no b e t t e r t h a n o t h e r s t u d e n t s a t R e c o g n i z i n g t h e 104 Canadian poems. The second and t h i r d groups, which were to be made up of those students Aware of the study's purposes and those students w i t h Pre-Knowledge, d i d not m a t e r i a l i z e . Other student sample d e t a i l s i n c l u d e (n = 4-77): Under Knowledge Students Denied 2 3 6 Given 241 Under O r i g i n s RC/NZ 2 3 6 BC/NZ 241 Under Order Canadian poem f irst„ /t......... 2 3 3 New Zealand poem f i r s t .... 244 By Sex Male ......... , .. ................... 2 2 9 Female 248 There thus e x i s t e d a good balance of student numbers under each of these v a r i a b l e s . While there was some v a r i a t i o n between the student numbers r e c e i v i n g each poem p a i r (28 students was the lowest and 58 the highest number r e c e i v i n g a p a r t i c u l a r p a i r ) , only 3 poem p a i r s were r e c e i v e d by fewer than 40 students. The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Responses Over Poem P a i r s Responses i n each category were derived q u i t e evenly from the 12 poem p a i r s . Exceptions were Comprehension and Quantity of W r i t i n g (see below, p. 108). Under Comprehension, 4 poem p a i r s gave r i s e to r e l a t i v e l y d iscrepant scores between ' the poems. However, the apparently d i f f i c u l t poems were d i s -t r i b u t e d evenly between Canada and New Zealand (2/2) and a l s o between the RC/NZ and BC/NZ cond i t i o n s ( l / l , 1/1), Therefore the i n c l u s i o n of four d i f f i c u l t poems ( i n r e l a t i v e terms) should not have a f f e c t e d the o v e r a l l f i n d i n g s . Under Quantity of W r i t i n g the gre a t e r response l e n g t h devoted to Canadian poems was accounted f o r by 3 poems: " V a l l e y of Wenkchemna" ( c f . , " H i l l Country," 15/5, X 2 = 5**); "Lagoons, Hanlan's P o i n t " ( c f . "The Anchorage," 24/9, X 2 = 6 .8***); and "The Sleeping Beauty" ( c f . "A View of Rangitoto," 26/9, X 2 = 8.3***). With no- other p a i r s was s i g n i f i c a n c e reached. The N e u t r a l i t y of the Poem Base As revealed by content a n a l y s i s and by the L i k e r t s c a l e , the poems (over a l l p a i r s ) were of p r a c t i c a l l y equal p o p u l a r i t y . Under Denied Knowledge, the Means f o r the two poem groups on the L i k e r t 'scale were exceedingly close—4 . 3 8 9 and 4.385 (both between the s c a l e p o i n t s " f a i r l y good" and "good"). A c o r r e l a t e d t t e s t f o r the d i f f e r e n c e between 2 c o r r e l a t e d means produced a value of only .04. Under Recognition i n the Denied Knowledge c o n d i t i o n (as w i l l be reported below, S p e c i f i c Findings (1) ) the Cana-dian poems d i d not betray t h e i r O r i g i n s to an extent t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a t e d them from the New Zealand poems. 106 I n terms o f f r e e r e s p o n s e and under t h e D e n i e d Know-l e d g e c o n d i t i o n (as w i l l he r e p o r t e d below, S p e c i f i c F i n d i n g s (2) ) t h e Canadian and New Z e a l a n d poems d i d n o t s t i m u l a t e d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s e xcept i n one c a t e g o r y . Thus, t h e b a l a n c e i n p r e f e r e n c e , R e c o g n i t i o n , and f r e e r e s p o n s e s c o r e s s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e poem sample was w e l l s u i t e d t o s e r v e as a base f o r comparisons between t h e Denied and G i v e n Knowledge c o n d i t i o n s . The N u m e r i c a l Importance o f Each Category: The F r e q u e n c i e s  of S c o r e s The number o f r e s p o n s e s under each c a t e g o r y ( u s i n g Frequency d a t a under D e n i e d Knowledge) v a r i e d w i d e l y ( see T a b l e I I ) . The c a t e g o r i e s most f r e q u e n t l y r e c e i v i n g t h e s t u d e n t s * r e s p o n s e s were, i n t h i s o r d e r , Involvement, I n t e r -p r e t a t i o n , and E v a l u a t i o n . Then, w i t h r o u g h l y e q u a l w e i g h t , came Comprehension, V i s u a l i s a t i o n , Form, and Dictums. G i v e n Knowledge made l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e t o t h i s p a t t e r n . Only T r a n s f e r - P l a c e (moving from 12% t o 17% f o r t h e Canadian poems) and T r a n s f e r - S p e c i a l (moving from 1% t o k% f o r t h e Canadian poems) m a r k e d l y changed w i t h G i v e n Knowledge. Most s t u d e n t s (75?°) d i d d i s c r i m i n a t e between poems i n a t l e a s t one c a t e g o r y o f the c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s Scheme. However, few produced Comparative s c o r e s i n more t h a n 3 o r 4- c a t e g o r i e s . 107 TABLE II '. FREQUENCY DATA I l l u s t r a t i n g the numerical DENIED KNOWLEDGE - Importance of Each, Category, I * of 236) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 EVALUATION DESCRIP.RECAPIT. TRANS.SPECIAL INVOLVEMENT INTERPRETATION DICTTWS COMPREHENSION TRANS.PLACE VISUALISATION DEPTH FORM CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN HZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ POSITIVE 26* 26* 5* 8* 8* 9* 12* 9% 1* 3* 25* 23* 50* 50* 5* 5* 44* 44* 19* 21* 24* 22* 1 1 L _ 17* 14* 17* 15* .4* 3* 3* 3* 1* 18* 17* 3* 3* .4* .4* .4* .4* NEGATIVE The most conspicuous c a t e g o r i e s under Frequency-d a t a were not t h e same as under Comparative d a t a . (See T a b l e V.) I n t h e l a t t e r c ase, I n v o l v e m e n t , E v a l u a t i o n , V i s u a l i -s a t i o n , and Comprehension were t h e most c o n s p i c u o u s . The d i f f e r e n c e i s b e s t e x p l a i n e d by exa m i n i n g the cases o f I n t e r -p r e t a t i o n and E v a l u a t i o n . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n d e c l i n e d i n importance when Comparative s c o r e s were used because t h e many s t o c k r e -s p o n s e - p o s t u r e s t h a t f e l l under i t s l a b e l were u s u a l l y a p p l i e d , n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t e l y , t o b o t h poems. I n E v a l u a t i o n , by c o n t r a s t , many r e s p o n s e s d i d s i n g l e out one poem o f a p a i r and so were s c o r e d s i m i l a r l y under b o t h F r e q u e n c i e s and Co m p a r a t i v e s . 10;8 As a r e s u l t o f supplementary c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s ( see above, p. 92) i t was found t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s emerged between poem groups on t h e amount of w r i t i n g s t u d e n t s d e v o t e d t o each group ( c f . above, p. 5 5 ) . The f o l l o w i n g a n a l y t i c a l method was used: t h e number of words s t u d e n t s a p p l i e d t o each poem was counted; where a d i f f e r e n c e o f 10$ emerged ( 1 word i n e v e r y 10) t h e poem w i t h most words was s c o r e d p o s i t i v e under " Q u a n t i t y o f W r i t i n g . " The f i n d i n g s a r e r e p o r t e d i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n s . SPECIFIC FINDINGS ( 1 ) : RECOGNITION T h i s s e c t i o n ( l ) d e a l s w i t h Research Q u e s t i o n ( 1 ) : t o what e x t e n t can Vancouver grade 11 s t u d e n t s who do not know o f t h e o r i g i n s o f Canadian oems n e v e r t h e l e s s r e c o g n i z e them as b e i n g a) n a t i o n a l o r (b) r e g i o n a l ( B r i t i s h Columbian)? I t f i n d s t h a t : the s t u d e n t s were u n a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h a Canadian or BC l a n d s c a p e poem from a New Z e a l a n d l a n d s c a p e poem r e a d b e s i d e i t . A f u l l e r c o n c l u s i o n can be found below, p. 119. (a) The Canadian and New Z e a l a n d Poem Groups as Wholes ( i ) D e n ied Knowledge Q u e s t i o n : ( R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 1, a) To what e x t e n t can Vancouver grade 11 s t u d e n t s who do not Know t h e O r i g i n s o f Canadian poems, n e v e r t h e l e s s Recognize them as b e i n g Canadian? 109 The e x t e n t o f R e c o g n i t i o n c o u l d be gauged under Denied Knowledge. I n o r d e r t o know whether t h e s t u d e n t s were d i s c r i m i -n a t i n g between poem O r i g i n s t h e e x t e n t o f R e c o g n i t i o n was compared w i t h t h a t r e l a t i n g t o the New Z e a l a n d poems ( i e . R e c o g n i z i n g them as b e i n g f o r e i g n ) . TABLE III RECOGNITION OF ORIGIN DENIED AND GIVEN KNOWLEDGE (% of: K- 236; K+ 241) £kj The Canadian and New Zealand Poem Groups 5^_7 The Canadian and New Zealand Poems Both Correct Compared (As a Joint Event — Pull Discrimination) CAN CORRECT NZ CORRECT 76^ K-35# Kt 64# CAN NZ K-8* CAN NZ K+ 55$ 30.9* X 2 • 20.8*** X 2 = 82. 53 *** Data: ( T a b l e I I I , A) Of s t u d e n t s i n t h e Denied Knowledge c o n d i t i o n , 3&f° Recognized t h e Canadian poems ( o r i f c a l c u l a t e d as a p r o -p o r t i o n o f t h o s e who, v a l i d l y , completed t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1 ) . The f i g u r e s were s i m i l a r t o t h o s e f o r t h e R e c o g n i t i o n o f the 110 New Z e a l a n d poems as b e i n g f o r e i g n (35$ o r 4-6$) though i n b o t h cases t h e Canadian f i g u r e was m a r g i n a l l y g r e a t e r . However, 4-1$ ( o r 54$) o f t h e s t u d e n t s c a l l e d the New Z e a l a n d poems Canadian. An al m o s t i d e n t i c a l number c a l l e d t h e Canadian poems f o r e i g n . D i s c u s s i o n : A l t h o u g h r o u g h l y h a l f t h e s t u d e n t s R e c o g n i z e d t h e Canadian poems, t h e i r placement o f t h e New Z e a l a n d poems su g g e s t s t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s were c a l l i n g h a l f o f a l l poems Canadian r e g a r d l e s s of t r u e O r i g i n . I n f a c t more (though n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more) s t u d e n t s c a l l e d t h e New Z e a l a n d poems Canadian t h a n t h e y d i d t h e Canadian poems. C o n c l u s i o n : Because t h e s t u d e n t s c o u l d n o t d i s c r i m i n a t e between t h e O r i g i n s o f t h e Canadian and New Z e a l a n d poems, t h e y cannot be s a i d t o have c l e a r l y R e c o g n i z e d t h e Canadian poems under t h e terms o f Research Q u e s t i o n (1, a) Notes: The f a c t t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d l i t t l e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between O r i g i n s under Denied Knowledge l e n t a g r e a t e r v a l i d i t y t o t h e Denied Knowledge/Given Knowledge comparison u s i n g f r e e r esponse d a t a . D e nied Knowledge d i d a p p l y t o Canadian and New Z e a l a n d poems e q u a l l y . ( G i v e n Knowledge w i l l be examined I l l i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g . ) The q u e s t i o n a r o s e as t o t h e number o f s t u d e n t s who c o r r e c t l y and f u l l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d between t h e poems ( c a l l i n g t h e Canadian poem Canadian and t h e New Z e a l a n d poem f o r e i g n ) . The q u e s t i o n i s pursued below (1, b ) . ( i i ) G i v e n Knowledge Q u e s t i o n : t o c h e c k , t h a t s t u d e n t s under G i v e n Knowledge d i d n o t i c e and a c c e p t t h e l a b e l s , and so e s t a b l i s h t h e two Know-le d g e c o n d i t i o n s under wh i c h f r e e r e s p o n s e s c o u l d be compared. S t u d e n t s under G i v e n Knowledge s h o u l d have R e c o g n i z e d O r i g i n s much more o f t e n t h a n s t u d e n t s under Denied Knowledge. Data: ( T a b l e I I I , A) Under G i v e n Knowledge 76$ o f t h e s t u d e n t s v a l i d l y and c o r r e c t l y answered t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e remembered O r i g i n o f t h e Canadian poems. The c o r r e s p o n d i n g f i g u r e f o r t h e New Z e a l a n d poems was 64$. The d i f f e r e n c e was no t s i g n i f i c a n t . The d i f f e r e n c e s between c o r r e c t answers under G i v e n Knowledge and c o r r e c t answers under D e n i e d Knowledge were s i g n i f i c a n t ( X 2 Canada C o r r e c t = 30.9***5 X 2 N.Z. C o r r e c t = 20.8***). 112 C o n c l u s i o n : The s t u d e n t s under G i v e n Knowledge e x h i b i t e d a R e c o g n i t i o n o f O r i g i n s s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those under Denied Knowledge t o j u s t i f y t h e a n a l y s i s o f f r e e - r e s p o n s e under each Knowledge c o n d i t i o n . Note: The p e r c e n t a g e o f t h o s e G i v e n Knowledge s t u d e n t s n o t a n s w e r i n g c o r r e c t l y (24$ and 36$) i s p u z z l i n g . They may have m i s a p p l i e d t h e l a b e l s , n o t r e a d them, r e j e c t e d them, f o r g o t t e n them, become f a t i g u e d , and so on. The p e r c e n t a g e a g a i n s u g g e s t e d a s e p a r a t e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e f r e e r e s p o n s e s of t h o s e s t u d e n t s who d i d c o r r e c t l y and f u l l y d i s c r i m i n a t e between t h e poems ( i . e . o f t h o s e s t u d e n t s who a c t u a l l y P o s s e s s e d Knowledge). (b) R e c o g n i t i o n o f O r i g i n s C o n s i d e r e d as a J o i n t Event ( S t u d e n t s  F u l l y D i s c r i m i n a t i n g Between the P a i r e d Poems) Q u e s t i o n : How many s t u d e n t s c o r r e c t l y and f u l l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d between t h e poems ( c a l l i n g t h e Canadian poem Canadian and t h e New Z e a l a n d poem f o r e i g n ) ? Data: ( T a b l e I I I , B) A t o t a l o f 152 (31$ o f 4-77) s t u d e n t s c o r r e c t l y d i s -c r i m i n a t e d between t h e Canadian and New Z e a l a n d poems. Of 113 t h e s e , 132 were G i v e n Knowledge s t u d e n t s (54$ o f 241) and 20 were Denied Knowledge s t u d e n t s (8$ o f 236). D i s c u s s i o n and C o n c l u s i o n : I n t h e case o f Denied Knowledge t h e f i g u r e was low hut consonant w i t h t h e low R e c o g n i t i o n under Denied Knowledge a l r e a d y d i s c o v e r e d ( see above, 1, a, i ) . The p r e s e n t f i n d i n g emphasized t h a t s t u d e n t s w i t h o u t G i v e n Knowledge were not a b l e t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between poem O r i g i n s . I n t h e case o f G i v e n Knowledge, t h e f i g u r e was s u r -p r i s i n g l y low. However, 57 (23$ o f 2 4 l ) s t u d e n t s r e t u r n e d 7 r e s p o n s e s i n v a l i d f o r t h e purposes o f a s s e s s i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; and 53 (22-$) c a l l e d t h e Canadian poem c o r r e c t l y but f a i l e d t o c a l l c o r r e c t l y , o r c a l l a t a l l , t he New Z e a l a n d poem. Only 29 (12$) c a l l e d t h e Canadian poem " f o r e i g n " i n d e n i a l o f t h e l a b e l , whereas 99 (42$ o f 236) under Denied Knowledge c a l l e d t h e C anadian poem f o r e i g n . W h i l e 132 (54$) i s , t h e n , a c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n under G i v e n Knowledge, i t remains s u r p r i s i n g l y low. E x p l a n a t i o n s f o r such a " d e n i a l " o f t h e l a b e l s must i n -c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a t some s t u d e n t s were not i m p r e s s e d by the l a b e l ' s i mportance o r p r e f e r r e d t o t h i n k t h a t t h e Canadian poem was inot Canadian o r t h e New Z e a l a n d poem was not New Z e a l a n d . Note: These f i n d i n g s f u r t h e r recommended t h e s e p a r a t e c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s o f f r e e r e s p o n s e s f o r thos e s t u d e n t s who d i d d i s c r i m i n a t e c o r r e c t l y and f u l l y . Such s t u d e n t s were c a l l e d C o r r e c t l y P o s s e s s e d Knowledge (PK+) s t u d e n t s . They were com-pa r e d w i t h I n c o r r e c t l y P o s s e s s e d Knowledge (PK-) s t u d e n t s . The l a t t e r group was*-, made up o f t h o s e who were a b s o l u t e l y wrong ( c a l l i n g t h e New Z e a l a n d poem Canadian and v i c e v e r s a ) , o r wrong about one poem w h i l e f a i l i n g t o answer t h e o t h e r . (The a b s o l u t e l y wrong group was t o o s m a l l f o r u s e f u l comparison. The second group was "wrong" i n t h a t i t e x h i b i t e d b o t h e r r o r and, presumably, doubt.) T h i s comparison i s found below under S p e c i f i c F i n d i n g s (3» B ) . (c) R e c o g n i t i o n as I n f l u e n c e d by t h e RC/NZ and BC/NZ C o n d i t i o n s Q u e s t i o n : ( R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 1, b) To what e x t e n t can Vancouver a r e a Grade 11 s t u d e n t s who do not Know t h e O r i g i n s o f t h e Canadian poems n e v e r t h e l e s s Recognize t h e poems when t h e y a r e r e g i o n a l (B.C.)? The e x t e n t o f R e c o g n i t i o n c o u l d be gauged under Denied Knowledge. I n o r d e r t o know whether t h e s t u d e n t s were d i s c r i m -i n a t i n g between poem O r i g i n s , t h e f i g u r e was compared w i t h t h a t f o r R e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e Rest-of-Canada poems and t h e New Z e a l a n d poems. 115 ( i ) R e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e Canadian Poems Data: ( T a b l e IV, A) Under Denied Knowledge, 48 s t u d e n t s (41$ o f t h o s e under Denied Knowledge i n t h e RC/NZ s u b - c o n d i t i o n ) R e c o g n i z e d the RC poems and 42 (36$) R e c o g n i z e d t h e BC poems (as C a n a d i a n ) . Under G i v e n Knowledge the f i g u r e s were 90 (76$) and 95 (77$). The d i f f e r e n c e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t . D i s c u s s i o n and C o n c l u s i o n : There e x i s t e d n e i t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s n o r a TABLE IV RECOGNITION OP ORIGIN CANADIAN AND NEW ZEALAND POEMS TJNDER THE RC/NZ AND BC/NZ CONDITIONS {% of: K-, RC/NZ 118, BC/NZ 118; Kt, RC/NZ 118, BC/NZ 123) (A) The Canadian Poems (B) The New Zealand Poems K- K+ K- K+ RC BC RC B C RC BC RC BC 41% Z6% 76% 77% 32£ 38# 62$ 68^ 116 t r e n d a c r o s s Knowledge c o n d i t i o n s . The s t u d e n t s appear t o have been no more a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e t h e p o e t r y o f t h e i r own r e g i o n t h a n t h a t o f t h e i r n a t i o n as a whole. ( i i ) R e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e New Z e a l a n d Poems Data: ( T a b l e IV, B) Under Denied Knowledge 38 (32$) s t u d e n t s c o r r e c t l y p l a c e d t h e New Z e a l a n d poem (as f o r e i g n ) when i t was p a i r e d w i t h a Rest-of-Canada poem, whereas 45 (38$) c o r r e c t l y p l a c e d i t when i t was p a i r e d w i t h a BC poem. Under G i v e n Knowledge the f i g u r e s were 73 (62$) and 83 (67$). The d i f f e r e n c e s were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . D i s c u s s i o n : A l t h o u g h , under b o t h Knowledge c o n d i t i o n s , t h e New Z e a l a n d poem was more a c c u r a t e l y i d e n t i f i e d (as f o r e i g n ) when i t was p a i r e d w i t h a BC poem, t h e t r e n d was not s i g n i f i c a n t . C o n c l u s i o n : These f i n d i n g s p a r a l l e l e d t h o s e under ( i ) i m m e d i a t e l y above. T o g e t h e r t h e y answered Research Q u e s t i o n 1, b: t h e s t u d e n t s d i d n o t , i n R e c o g n i z i n g O r i g i n s , d i s t i n g u i s h between t h e i r r e g i o n ' s p o e t r y and f o r e i g n p o e t r y any b e t t e r t h a n between t h e i r n a t i o n ' s p o e t r y and f o r e i g n p o e t r y . 117 (d) S p e c i a l Notes ( i ) R e c o g n i t i o n by Those S t u d e n t s D e s i g n a t e d as H a v i n g E x t e n -s i v e Canadian Reading. ( R e c o g n i t i o n by t h o s e s t u d e n t s who, as the d e s i g n s p e c u l a t e d , might have responded t o Canadian l i t e r a t u r e d i f f e r e n t l y from t h e g e n e r a l group. The group comprised 80 s t u d e n t s who s c o r e d 4 and 5 on t h e s c a l e s O p i n i o n 1 and O p i n i o n 2.) Q u e s t i o n : To a s c e r t a i n whether t h o s e s t u d e n t s who c l a i m e d t o have had t h e most c o n t a c t w i t h Canadian l i t e r a t u r e , p r i v a t e l y and i n c l a s s , R e c o g n i z e d t h e Canadian poems* O r i g i n s more r e a d i l y t h a n o t h e r s t u d e n t s d i d and whether, t h e r e f o r e , t h e former s t u d e n t s s h o u l d have been t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y under f r e e r e s p o n s e . Data and D i s c u s s i o n : Under Denied Knowledge 15 E x t e n s i v e Canadian Reading s t u d e n t s R e c o g n i z e d t h e Canadian poem, 17 c a l l e d i t f o r e i g n . T h i s p r o p o r t i o n o f c o r r e c t s t u d e n t s (4-7$) was v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f t h e main sample. The r a t i o o f c o r r e c t R e c o g n i t i o n s under D e n i e d Knowledge (15) t o t h o s e under G i v e n Knowledge (3 2 ) was, a g a i n , a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e r a t i o i n t h e main sample (.4-7 c f . .4-9). C o n c l u s i o n : S t u d e n t s w i t h E x t e n s i v e Canadian Reading d i d not 118 R e c o g n i z e Canadian O r i g i n s more r e a d i l y t h a n o t h e r s t u d e n t s . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , and "because o f t h e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l 2 s i z e o f the group, t h e r e seemed no p o i n t i n a n a l y z i n g i t s f r e e r e s p o n s e s s e p a r a t e l y . Note: I n f a c t an a s s o c i a t i o n between, on one hand, r e l a -t i v e l y h i g h ( n o t n e c e s s a r i l y E x t e n s i v e ) Canadian Reading and, on the o t h e r , C o r r e c t l y P o s s e s s e d Knowledge, w i l l be shown i n a f u t u r e r e p o r t (see below, p. 163). I n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e s t r e n g t h of t h a t a s s o c i a t i o n , the s p e c i a l a n a l y s i s o f f r e e r e s ponse under P o s s e s s e d Knowledge (below, 3, B) d i d c a r r y t h r o u g h a s e p a r a t e a n a l y s i s o f t h o s e s t u d e n t s w i t h r e l a t i v e l y h i g h Canadian Reading. ( i i ) R e c o g n i t i o n by t h e S t u d e n t Sub-Group Rest-of-Canada ( R e c o g n i t i o n by t h o s e s t u d e n t s who, as t h e d e s i g n p r o -posed, were l e f t out o f t h e main a n a l y s i s as v i o l a t i n g the i n t e g r i t y o f t h e s t u d e n t base, Vancouver a r e a s t u d e n t s . ) Q u e s t i o n : To a s c e r t a i n whether t h i s group o f s t u d e n t s Recog-n i z e d Canadian O r i g i n s more o r l e s s r e a d i l y t h a n o t h e r groups. Data and D i s c u s s i o n : Under Denied Knowledge 10 Rest-of-Canada s t u d e n t s R e c o g n i z e d t h e Canadian poem, 8 c a l l e d i t f o r e i g n . 119 T h i s was a h i g h e r r a t e o f R e c o g n i t i o n t h a n f o r t h e Vancouver s t u d e n t s (and, c u r i o u s l y , i t was even h i g h e r w i t h t h e BC poems —9 c f . 5) but the sample was t o o s m a l l t o he r e l i a b l e . The r a t i o o f c o r r e c t R e c o g n i t i o n s under D e n i e d Know-le d g e (10) t o t h o s e under G i v e n Knowledge (21) was a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e r a t i o i n t h e o t h e r samples (.48 c f . .4-7 and .4-9). C o n c l u s i o n : E x c e p t where i t was u n r e l i a b l e , t h e r e was no d a t a s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e Rest-of-Canada s t u d e n t s R e c o g n i z e d d i f f e r -e n t l y t h a n t h e o t h e r groups. (e) R e c o g n i t i o n : G e n e r a l C o n c l u s i o n and D i s c u s s i o n The s t u d e n t s d i d not appear a b l e t o Recognize Canadian or BC l a n d s c a p e p o e t r y t o any i m p o r t a n t e x t e n t . W h i l e about 50$ o f t h e s t u d e n t s R e c o g n i z e d t h e Canadian poems, t h e f i n d i n g s f o r t h e New Z e a l a n d poems and f o r f u l l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s u g g e s t e d t h a t s t u d e n t s were c a l l i n g 50$ o f t h e poems Canadian f o r reas o n s not p e c u l i a r t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r poem p a i r s b e f o r e them. I f t h i s i s t r u e i t might be a c c o u n t e d f o r by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e poem sample, o r p o s s i b l y by some h e i g h t e n e d c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f Canadian l i t e r a t u r e as a r e s u l t o f t h e p r e s s u r e s r e v i e w e d i n Ch a p t e r I . Under G i v e n Knowledge t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t Recog-n i t i o n t o w a r r a n t t h e a n a l y s i s o f f r e e r e sponse under each Knowledge c o n d i t i o n as proposed. However t h e r e was a l s o s u f f i - * c i e n t n o n - R e c o g n i t i o n t o recommend t h e supplementary a n a l y s i s 12© o f f r e e r e s p o n s e under " P o s s e s s e d Knowledge." The e x t e n t o f n o n - R e c o g n i t i o n s u g g e s t s , but o n l y s u g g e s t s , t h a t n o t a l l s t u d e n t s found t h e l a b e l s "A Canadian Poem" and "A B.C. Poem" p a r t i c u l a r l y n o teworthy. SPECIFIC FINDINGS (2): FREE RESPONSE: DIFFERENCES INHERENT I N THE POEMS (DENIED KNOWLEDGE) T h i s s e c t i o n (2) d e a l s w i t h Research Q u e s t i o n (2): t o what e x t e n t do Vancouver Grade 11 s t u d e n t s r e s p o n d d i f f e r e n t l y t o (a) t h e i r n a t i o n ' s p o e t r y o r t o (b) t h e i r r e g i o n ' s p o e t r y , t h a n t o p o e t r y from o t h e r c o u n t r i e s ? I t f i n d s t h a t : t h e r e were no:;general t r e n d s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s responded d i f f e r e n t l y t o t h e Canadian and New Z e a l a n d poem samples when t h e y were n ot t o l d of t h e O r i g i n s o f t h e samples. A f u l l e r c o n c l u s i o n can be found below, p. 124 . (a) Conrparative S c o r e s ( i ) The N a t i o n a l ( C a n a d i a n and New Zealand) Poem Groups as Wholes Q u e s t i o n : D i d t h e f r e q u e n c i e s o f Comparative s c o r e s i n any c a t e g o r y d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y (between t h e n a t i o n a l poem g r o u p s ) , t h e r e b y d e n o t i n g a d i f f e r e n c e i n response t o t h e Canadian, as opposed t o t h e New Z e a l a n d , poems? 123: Data: ( T a b l e V) The s c o r e s f o r t h e Canadian and New Z e a l a n d poems were almost i d e n t i c a l i n each c a t e g o r y except f o r a s i g n i f i -cant d i f f e r e n c e , f a v o u r i n g t h e Canadian poems, under T r a n s f e r -P l a c e and f o r t h e t r e n d s towards t h e Canadian poems under V i s u a l i s a t i o n and towards t h e New Z e a l a n d poems under Compre-h e n s i o n . A c r o s s t h e r e m a i n i n g c a t e g o r i e s t h e r e were no appa r e n t t r e n d s . TABLE V FREE RESPONSE, COMPARATIVE DATA I l l u s t r a t i n g the Patterns DENIED KNOWLEDGE Response Associated With ( i of: 236) ^he Canadian and New Zealand Poem Groups 1 - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 EVALUATION DESCRIP.RECAPIT. TRANS.SPECIAL INVOLVEMENT INTERPRETATION DICTUMS COMPREHENSION TRANS.PLACE VISUALISATION DEPTH FORM CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ 1 9 * 1 8 * 12* 14* 5 * 5 * 6* 3 * 3 * 3 * 1 6 * 1 3 * 18* 18* 5* 5 * 1 0 * 1 0 * 6* 7* 6* 4 * 122 C o n c l u s i o n : The d i f f e r e n c e r e g i s t e r e d i n T r a n s f e r - P l a c e s u g g e s t s t h a t some s t u d e n t s d i d r e c o g n i z e s e t t i n g s and make r e f e r e n c e t o them. F o r t h e r e s t , t h e r e appears t o have been no s p e c i a l r e s p onse t o t h e Canadian poems where t h o s e poems were not i d e n t i f i e d as such. ( i i ) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ C o n d i t i o n s Q u e s t i o n : D i d t h e p a t t e r n s o f s c o r e s under t h e RC/NZ and BC/NZ c o n d i t i o n s d i f f e r t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e two c o n d i t i o n s c o u l d be r e g a r d e d as i n f l u e n c i n g response? Data and D i s c u s s i o n : ( T a b l e VI) There was no d i f f e r e n c e i n p a t t e r n o f r e s p o n s e , as opposed t o volume o f r e s p o n s e , between t h e RC/NZ BC/NZ c o n d i -t i o n s . The s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n T r a n s f e r - P l a c e n o t e d under (1, a) above appears t o have been c o n t r i b u t e d t o by b o t h t h e RC and BC poems. C o n c l u s i o n : The f i n d i n g , under (1, a ) , t h a t t h e r e was no s p e c i a l r e s p onse t o t h e Canadian poems (where t h o s e poems were not i d e n t i f i e d as s u c h ) , a p p l i e s e q u a l l y t o t h e RC and BC poems. 123 11 DICTUMS TABLE VI FREE RESP0H3E, COMPARATIVE DATA I l l u s t r a t i n g t ' 3 DENTED KNOWLEDGE patterns of.response THE 'RC/NZ, BC/NZ CONDITIONS associated with the (* cf: KC/NZ 118;BC/NZ 118(totnl K- 336) ) (regional) poetry sub-conditions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 EVALUATION DESCRIP.RECAPIT. TRANS.SPECIAL INVOLVEMENT INTERPRETATION COMPREHENSION TRANS.PLACE VISUALISATION DEPTH FORM CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN HZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ 22* 22* 11* 16* 7* 5* 8* 4* 5* 4* 18* 14* 21* 27* 7* 8* 12* 11* 6* 8* 3* 5* REST-OF-CANADA / NEW ZEALAND 15* 14* 14* 13* 2* 5* 4* 2* 2* 2* 14* 12* 14* 9*- 2* 2$ BRITISH COLUMBIA / NEW ZEALAND 7* 8* 3* l~r r—r n X 2 = 2.57 X 2 =2.17 X 2 = n/a (b) Q u a n t i t y o f W r i t i n g ( i ) The Canadian and New Z e a l a n d Poem Groups as Wholes Q u e s t i o n : D i d t h e f r e q u e n c i e s o f Q u a n t i t y s c o r e s i n any c a t e -g o r y d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y (between the n a t i o n a l poem groups) t h e r e b y d e n o t i n g a d i f f e r e n c e i n response t o t h e Canadian, as opposed t o t h e New Z e a l a n d , poems? 124 Data: ( T a b l e V I I , A) No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e o c c u r r e d . The t r e n d f a v o u r e d t h e Can a d i a n poems. C o n c l u s i o n : The d a t a under Q u a n t i t y was i n concordance w i t h t h e g e n e r a l f i n d i n g s t o t h i s p o i n t : under Denied Knowledge t h e r e was no s p e c i a l r e s p o n s e t o t h e Canadian poems as a body. ( i i ) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ C o n d i t i o n s Q u e s t i o n : D i d t h e s c o r e s under t h e RC/NZ and BC/NZ c o n d i t i o n s d i f f e r t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e two c o n d i t i o n s c o u l d be r e g a r d e d as i n f l u e n c i n g response? Data and C o n c l u s i o n : ( T a b l e V I I , B) A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e o c c u r r e d under BC/NZ, f a v o u r i n g t h e BC poems. No such d i f f e r e n c e o c c u r r e d under RC/NZ. Thus t h e t r e n d f a v o u r i n g t h e Canadian poems n o t e d under ( i ) above was due t o the BC/NZ s t i m u l u s and r e s p o n s e . ( c ) F r e e Response: I n h e r e n t D i f f e r e n c e s : G e n e r a l C o n c l u s i o n  and D i s c u s s i o n There were no g e n e r a l t r e n d s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s responded d i f f e r e n t l y t o t h e Canadian and New Z e a l a n d poem samples o r t o t h e Rest-of-Canada and BC poems. Two i s o l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n response o c c u r r e d . That f a v o u r i n g t h e Canadian poems under Q u a n t i t y o f W r i t i n g was s i g n i f i c a n t o n l y i n t h e BC/NZ c o n d i t i o n . ( I n no o t h e r r e s p e c t s 125 were t h e RC/NZ and BC/NZ c o n d i t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e s p o n s e d i f f e r e n c e s . ) The o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e , t h a t which f a v o u r e d t h e Canadian poems under T r a n s f e r - P l a c e r a i s e s a new q u e s t i o n o f the T r a n s f e r p r i n c i p l e : does f u l l T r a n s f e r depend upon some-t h i n g more t h a n s i m p l e R e c o g n i t i o n ? A f t e r a l l , t h e p a r t i c u l a r e f f e c t seen here was i s o l a t e d ; o t h e r r e sponse c a t e g o r i e s d i d no t e x h i b i t d i f f e r e n c e s . TABLE VII FREE RESPONSE, QUANTITY OF WRITING DENIED KNOWLEDGE (A) THE CAN/NZ COMPARISON (B) THE RC/NZ, BC/NZ CONDITIONS (% of: 236) (% of RC/NZ 118; BC/NZ 118 (total K-236) ) RC/NZ -3C/NZ CAN NZ 4155 35^ CAN NZ 36# 39 # CAN NZ 46# 30# 3.6* 2.74 SPECIFIC FINDINGS (3, A) FREE RESPONSE: DIFFERENCES ASSOCIATED WITH GIVEN KNOWLEDGE T h i s s e c t i o n (3) d e a l s w i t h R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n ( J ) : t o what e x t e n t do d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e s p o n s e depend upon the s t u d e n t s b e i n g t o l d o f t h e O r i g i n s o f th e p o e t r y ? I t f i n d s t h a t : t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e e v i d e n c e t h a t s t u d e n t s responded d i f f e r e n t l y t o t h e Canadian and New Ze a l a n d poem samples when t h e y were t o l d o f 126 the O r i g i n s o f t h e samples. They f a v o u r e d t h e Canadian poems, o f t e n s t r o n g l y , i n a l m o s t e v e r y r esponse c a t e g o r y . A f u l l e r c o n c l u s i o n can be found below, p. 133 • (a) Comparative S c o r e s ( i ) The Canadian and New Z e a l a n d Poem Groups as Wholes. Q u e s t i o n : D i d t h e p a t t e r n s o f s c o r e s under Denied Knowledge and G i v e n Knowledge d i f f e r s u f f i c i e n t l y t o s u ggest t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n G i v e n Knowledge a f f e c t e d t h e s t u d e n t s ' r e s p o n s e s t o t h e Canadian or New Z e a l a n d poems? Data and D i s c u s s i o n : ( T a b l e V I I I ) Under G i v e n Knowledge, f r e q u e n c i e s tended t o f a v o u r t h e C anadian poems. The t r e n d was s i g n i f i c a n t i n f o u r cases: T r a n s f e r - P l a c e , T r a n s f e r - S p e c i a l , Depth, and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I t may a l s o have been p r e s e n t i n E v a l u a t i o n . Where t h e r e appeared t o be a t r e n d under D e n i e d Knowledge (as i n T r a n s f e r - P l a c e and V i s u a l i s a t i o n ) i t a l s o f a v o u r e d t h e Canadian poems. However o n l y i n one case ( T r a n s -f e r - P l a c e ) was i t s i g n i f i c a n t and t h e d i f f e r e n c e t h e r e was s m a l l e r t h a n t h e d i f f e r e n c e under G i v e n Knowledge. C o n c l u s i o n : The p a t t e r n o f r e s p o n s e s under G i v e n Knowledge was 127 s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t under Denied Knowledge t o suggest a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e e f f e c t of t h e two c o n d i t i o n s . The c o n d i t i o n G i v e n Knowledge was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e s p o n s e s t h a t f a v o u r e d t h e Canadian poems. The s t u d e n t s were a p p a r e n t l y i n -f l u e n c e d p o s i t i v e l y by t h e l a b e l s "A Canadian Poem" and "A B.C. Poem" o r n e g a t i v e l y by the l a b e l "Non-Canadian," as thos e l a b e l s were a p p l i e d t o the poems g i v e n t h e s t u d e n t s . TABLE VIII FREE RESPONSE, COMPARATIVE DATA DENIED AND GIVEN KNOWLEDGE (* of; K- of 236; K+ of 241) Illustrating the effects, on the patterns of response to the two poem groups, associated with Given Knowledge EVALUATION K- K+ CAN NZ CAN NZ 19* 18* 17* 14* COMPREHENSION K- K+ CAN NZ CAN NZ 12* 14*. 11* 10* DESCRIPTION, RECAP, 4 7 S DEPTH TRANSFER PLACE K- K+ CAN NZ CAN NZ 6* 3% 14% 3%, TRANSFER SPECIAL K- Kt) CAN NZ CAN NZ 3% 3% 8% 3% INVOLVEMENT K- Kt CAN NZ CAN NZ 18* 18* 22* 21* 5* 5% K-CAN NZ 7* 3* CAN^NZ INTERPRETATION K- Kt CAN NZ. CAN NZ 11* 10* 11* 7* 128 ( i i ) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ C o n d i t i o n s Q u e s t i o n : D i d t h e p a t t e r n s of s c o r e s under Denied Knowledge and G i v e n Knowledge d i f f e r s u f f i c i e n t l y t o suggest t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n G i v e n Knowledge a f f e c t e d t h e s t u d e n t s ' r e s p o n s e s t o the Rest-of-Canada poems d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n t h e i r r e s p o n s e s t o t h e BC poems? The RC/NZ C o n d i t i o n Data: ( T a b l e IX) There was a tendency under G i v e n Knowledge f o r s t u d e n t s t o f a v o u r t h e Canadian poems. S i g n i f i c a n c e was r e a c h e d i n 2 c a t e g o r i e s , E v a l u a t i o n and T r a n s f e r - P l a c e , and the t r e n d was p r e s e n t t o a g r e a t e r o r l e s s e r degree i n a l l c a t e -g o r i e s e xcept Comprehension. Under Denied Knowledge t h e same t r e n d e x i s t e d o n l y i n 5 c a t e g o r i e s : D e s c r i p t i o n , T r a n s f e r - P l a c e , T r a n s f e r - S p e c i a l , V i s u a l i s a t i o n , and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I n none was i t s i g n i f i c a n t . I n two, Comprehension and I n v o l v e m e n t , i t was r e v e r s e d . D i s c u s s i o n and C o n c l u s i o n : There appeared t o e x i s t s u f f i c i e n t d i f f e r e n c e between response p a t t e r n s under G i v e n and D e n i e d Knowledge and s u f f i -c i e n t l i k e n e s s o f p a t t e r n a c r o s s c a t e g o r i e s t o c o n c l u d e t h a t 129 TABLE IX FREE RESPONSE, COlffARATIVE DATA DENIED AND GIVEN KNOWLEDGE THE RC/NZ, BC/NZ CONDITIONS of: -K- RC/NZ 118: K+ RC/NZ 118 BC/NZ 118; BC/NZ 123 Illustrating the effects, on the patterns of response to the two (regional) poem sub-groups, associated with ,Given Knowledge EVALUATION K-CAN NZ 22% 22% K+ CAN NZ 20% 11% COMPREHENSION K- . . K+ CAN NZ CAN HZ ujf 16% e% 9% REST-OF-CANADA / NEW ZEALAND DESCRIPTION RECAPITULATION K- K+ CAN NZ CAN NZ 7% 6% 5% i% X2 » 3.27* 1&% 14% 13$ l-J% ' 14% 13JS 14% l l ' i BRITISH COLUMBIA /NEW ZEALAND 2% 4 TRANSFER PLACE K- K+ CAN NZ CAN NZ 8% 18;« 5% y? • 8.3**+ 4% 2% ' ' 11% 2% X2 « 6.25** TRANSFER SPECIAL K- K+ CAN NZ CAN NZ 5%- if 6% 2% Z% 2% 1\%- 3J8 X2 = 4.76** VISUALISATION K- K+ CAN NZ ' CAN NZ 18JS 14% 13% 10% 1*% 12% 12% 15% INVOLVEMENT K-CAN NZ 21% 27# K+ CAN NZ 23? 18% 14% 9% 21% 24% 8 DEPTH K-C A N NZ 1%. 8% I T ~ l C A N NZ 8% 3% 2% 2% 8% 9% 9 I N T E R P R E T A T I O N K-C A N NZ 12,? 11 % 9% 9% K+ C A N NZ 10# 9% 12% 4% the d i f f e r e n c e i n Knowledge e f f e c t s a l r e a d y observed w i t h the b r o a d e r Canadian New Z e a l a n d comparison was a l s o found under the RC/NZ c o n d i t i o n . On t h e o t h e r hand the CAN/NZ and RC/NZ p a t t e r n s were not i d e n t i c a l : the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s under RC/NZ (2 c a t e g o r i e s ) d i d not f u l l y c o i n c i d e w i t h t h o s e (4 c a t e g o r i e s ) under CAN/NZ. 130 I t r e m a i n s , however, t h a t i n b o t h t h e CAN/NZ and. RC/NZ c o n d i t i o n s , G i v e n Knowledge was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e s p o n s e s f a v o u r i n g t h e Canadian poem. The BC/NZ C o n d i t i o n Data: ( T a b l e IX) There were 2 t e n d e n c i e s under G i v e n Knowledge. One was t o g i v e more a t t e n t i o n t o t h e BC poems t h a n t o t h e New Z e a l a n d poems. S i g n i f i c a n c e was r e a c h e d i n 3 c a t e g o r i e s ( T r a n s f e r - P l a c e , T r a n s f e r - S p e c i a l , and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) and t h e t r e n d was p r e s e n t i n Comprehension. A g a i n s t t h a t t r e n d was one g i v i n g l e s s a t t e n t i o n t o the BC poems i n 4 c a t e g o r i e s : E v a l u a t i o n , D e s c r i p t i o n , V i s u a l i -s a t i o n , and Involvement. I t d i d not r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n c e i n any c a t e g o r y . Two s i g n i f i c a n t 2 x 2 Chi-Squares c o u l d be c a l c u -l a t e d between RC/NZ and BC/NZ ( i n E v a l u a t i o n and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) . D i s c u s s i o n and C o n c l u s i o n : There e x i s t e d some s i m i l a r i t y i n p a t t e r n t o t h a t f o u n d under t h e RC/NZ c o n d i t i o n . Under G i v e n Knowledge t h e BC poems were a l s o f a v o u r e d i n T r a n s f e r - P l a c e and T r a n s f e r - S p e c i a l . I n o t h e r r e s p e c t s , however, t h e response p a t t e r n s under BC/NZ d i f f e r e d from t h o s e under RC/NZ. S i g n i f i c a n c e o c c u r r e d i n , l a r g e l y , d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . And t h e r e were t h e two s i g n i f i c a n t 2 x 2 C h i - S q u a r e s . 131 Therefore there was apparently a d i f f e r e n c e between the e f f e c t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the RC/NZ and BC/NZ c o n d i t i o n s — o r with the l a b e l s "A Canadian Poem" and "A B.C. Poem" i n concert w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e poem s e t s . (b) Quantity of W r i t i n g ( i ) The Canadian and New Zealand Poem Groups as Wholes Question: Did the patterns of scores under Denied Knowledge and Given Knowledge d i f f e r s u f f i c i e n t l y to suggest t h a t the c o n d i t i o n Given Knowledge a f f e c t e d the students* responses to the Canadian or New Zealand poems? Data: (Table X, A) Under Given Knowledge the Canadian poems were s i g n i -f i c a n t l y favoured. The 2 x 2 Chi-Square was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Conclusion: I f , but only i f , chance d i s t r i b u t i o n s were assumed, the l a b e l "A Canadian Poem" or "A B.C. Poem," i n concert w i t h i t s r e s p e c t i v e poem s e t s , was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h more w r i t i n g about the Canadian poems under Given Knowledge. 132 ( i i ) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ Conditions Question: Did the patterns of scores under Denied Knowledge and Given Knowledge d i f f e r s u f f i c i e n t l y to suggest t h a t the condi-t i o n Given Knowledge a f f e c t e d the students' responses t o the Rest-of-Canada poems d i f f e r e n t l y than t h e i r responses to the BC poems? TABLE X FREE RESPONSE, QUANTITY OF WRITING DENIED AND GIVEN KNOWLEDGE (A) THE CAN/NZ COMPARISON (* of: K- 236; K+ 241 (total 477) ) K-CAN NZ Kt CAN NZ 40* ' 35* 44* 32* X 2 = 5.70 ** Ill u s t r a t i n g the effects, on tho patterns of response to tho different poem groups, associated with Given Knowledge. (B) THE RC/NZ BC/NZ CONDITIONS (* of: K- RC/NZ 118; K+ RC/NZ 118 BC/NZ 118; BC/NZ 123) RC/NZ K- Kf CAN NZ CAN NZ 36* 39 * 47* 26* X 2 • 7.18 *•* X 2 = 4.91 «* BC/NZ 46* 30* 40* 37* X 2 = 3.6 * 133 Data: ( T a b l e X, B) I n t h e RC/NZ c o n d i t i o n , under G i v e n Knowledge, and compared w i t h Denied Knowledge, t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r Q u a n t i t y o f W r i t i n g . I n t h e BC/NZ c o n d i t i o n t h e r e was a d e c r e a s e , under G i v e n Knowledge, i n Q u a n t i t y o f W r i t i n g on BC poems (under Denied Knowledge t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e f a v o u r i n g the BC poems, under G i v e n Knowledge t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e ) . C o n c l u s i o n : The l a b e l "A Canadian Poem," i n c o n c e r t w i t h i t s poem s e t and under G i v e n Knowledge, was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h g r e a t e r Q u a n t i t y o f W r i t i n g . There e x i s t e d a t r e n d i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n w i t h t h e l a b e l "A B.C. Poem." (c ) F r e e Response: G i v e n Knowledge: G e n e r a l C o n c l u s i o n and  D i s c u s s i o n The G i v e n Knowledge c o n d i t i o n was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s e s between t h e Canadian and New Z e a l a n d poems, b o t h i n terms o f response p a t t e r n s and the amount o f w r i t i n g upon each poem. The p a t t e r n s s u g g e s t e d a r i c h e r r e s p o n s e t o th e Canadian poems. The G i v e n Knowledge c o n d i t i o n was a l s o a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s e s between t h e two p o e t r y s u b - c o n d i t i o n s (RC/NZ and BC/NZ). A g a i n , t h e d i f f e r e n c e s o c c u r r e d i n b o t h 134 response patterns and the amount of w r i t i n g upon each poem. The nature of the patterns suggested that the response to the RC poems was a r e l a t i v e l y simple, p o s i t i v e , response to the l a b e l s . Response to the BC poems combined negative e v a l u a t i o n a l e f f e c t s with p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s i n other c a t e g o r i e s , thus appearing more complex. SPECIFIC FINDINGS (3, B) FREE RESPONSE: DIFFERENCES ASSOCIATED WITH POSSESSED KNOWLEDGE Question: This sub-section a p p l i e s Research Question 3 to the two extreme groups under Possessed Knowledge, as foreshadowed i n s e c t i o n (1) Recognition. I t f i n d s t h a t : the Response d i f f e r e n c e s detected under (3»A) were even g r e a t e r when a comparison was made between those two groups of students who, beyond being t o l d of poem O r i g i n s , a c t u a l l y possessed and d i d not possess a Knowledge of what those O r i g i n s were. A f u l l e r c o n c l u s i o n can be found below, p. I38. (a) Comparative Scores ( i ) The Canadian and New Zealand Poem Groups as Wholes Question: Did the patterns of scores under C o r r e c t l y Possessed Knowledge (PK+) and I n c o r r e c t l y Possessed Knowledge (PK-) 135 d i f f e r s u f f i c i e n t l y to suggest that the two c o n d i t i o n s a f f e c t e d the students' responses to the Canadian or New Zealand poems? Data: (Table XI) Under PK+ the Canadian poems were favoured, s i g n i -f i c a n t l y , i n 6 categories: E v a l u a t i o n , T r a n s f e r - P l a c e , T r a n s f e r - S p e c i a l , V i s u a l i s a t i o n , Depth, and Involvement. The trend e x i s t e d i n a l l other categories except D e s c r i p t i o n . Under I n c o r r e c t l y Possessed Knowledge the New Zealand poems (thought to be Canadian) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y favoured i n 2 categories: E v a l u a t i o n and Comprehension. The trend was present i n 3 others: D e s c r i p t i o n , V i s u a l i s a t i o n , and I n t e r -p r e t a t i o n . S i g n i f i c a n t 2 x 2 Chi-Squares could be c a l c u l a t e d i n 3 categories: E v a l u a t i o n , Comprehension, and V i s u a l i s a t i o n . Conclusion and D i s c u s s i o n : The patterns of response under C o r r e c t l y and I n c o r r e c t l y Possessed Knowledge were s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r a d i f f e r e n c e i n the e f f e c t of the two c o n d i t i o n s to be concluded. The c o n d i t i o n PK+ was s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h responses t h a t favoured the Canadian poems. The c o n d i t i o n PK- was s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h responses t h a t favoured the New Zealand (thought to be Canadian) poems. This f i n d i n g confirmed, strengthened, and extended the f i n d i n g under Given Knowledge. I t suggested that where the students b e l i e v e d a poem to be Canadian they 136 TABLS XI FREE RESPONSE, COMPARATIVE DATA CORRECTLY POSSESSED KNOWLEDGE AND . INCORRECTLY POSSESSED KNOWLEDGE <* of: PK- 68; PJC+ 152 (PK total 220)) Illustr a t i n g the effects, on the patterns of response to the two poem groups, associated with the two Possessed Knowledge conditions 1 2 3 4 EVALUATION COMPREHENSION. DESCRIPTION TRANSFER RECAPITULATION PLACE PK- ?K+ PK- PK* PK- PK+ PE- PK* CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN NZ CAN. NZ CAN NZ (HZ)(CAN) . . (NZ)(CAN) (NZ)(CAN) (NZ)(CAN) 9* 28* 21* 12* 4* 18* 16* 10*. 4* 12* 3*. 5* -. '. 7* 4* .15* -4* 6.76 X 2 = 3.31* *** X 2 = 5.41 X 2 = 10.08*** 6.97 1 n X 2 = 9.96*** X 2 ="n/a favoured i t i n many d i f f e r e n t response dimensions. The strength of t h i s trend was i n d i c a t e d by the Chi-Squares. Under the Given Knowledge/Denied Knowledge comparison, where many students apparently d i d not f u l l y Possess Knowledge, s i g n i f i c a n c e was reached only i n 4- cases--compared w i t h 8 under the PK+/PK- comparison. As w e l l , 5 of the l a t t e r were s i g n i -f i c a n t at . 0 5 compared wi t h the s i n g l e case under Knowledge,, S i m i l a r l y , the s i n g l e s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n under Knowledge,, TRANSFER SPECIAL PK- PK+ CAN NZ CAN NZ (NZHCAN) 4* 6* 8* 2* VISUALISATION, PK- PK* CAN NZ CAN NZ (NZHCAN) 13* 18* 17* 9* INVOLVEMENT PK- PK+ CAN NZ CAN NZ (NZ)(CAN) 19* 21* 28* 17* 8 DEPTH PE- PK+ CAN NZ CAN NZ (NZHCAN) 7* 4* 8* 3* 9 INTERPRETATION PK- PKt CAN NZ CAN NZ (NZ)(CAN) 7* 12* 12* 8* 5.4** * 2 : n/a X2 = 3.6* X 2 = 2.9' Xd - 2.76* X 2 ='l.6 was met by 3 under Possessed Knowledge. Considering the streng t h of the e f f e c t s under Possessed Knowledge and remembering th a t most students under PK+ were a l s o Given Knowledge students, the former group must have l a r g e l y accounted f o r the variance e x h i b i t e d under Given Knowledge. ( i i ) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ Conditions (not Tabled) The s m a l l s i z e of the PK sample, e x p e c i a l l y under PK-, rendered i n t e r p r e t a t i o n too hazardous when the samples were halved under the RC/NZ and BC/NZ groupings. (b) Quantity of W r i t i n g ( i ) The Canadian and New Zealand Poem Groups as Wholes Data: (Table XII) Under PK-, s i g n i f i c a n t l y more students produced most w r i t i n g with the Canadian poem (which they thought to be New Zealand) than w i t h the New Zealand poem. Under PK+ there was a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t t r e n d a l s o f a v o u r i n g the Canadian poem. The 2 x 2 Chi-Square was n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . Conclusion: While the Canadian poem (thought to be New Zealand) was favoured under PK-, the n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n suggested t h a t t h i s r e s u l t be viewed very c a u t i o u s l y . 138 TABLE XII FREE RESPONSE, QUANTITY OF WRITING CORRECTLY POSSESSED "KNOWLEDGE AND INCORRECTLY POSSESSED KNOWLEDQE (* of s PK- 68; PK* 152 (PK total 220) Il l u s t r a t i n g the effects, on the patterns of response to the two poem groups, ) associated with the two Possessed Knowledge conditions PK-CAN NZ (NZ)(CAN) 46* 28* PK* CAN NZ 41* 34? X 2 = 2.88* ( i i ) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ Conditions (not Tabled) The numbers were too s m a l l f o r r e l i a b l e t e s t i n g . The patterns t h a t d i d e x i s t r e vealed no d i f f e r e n c e s between the two c o n d i t i o n s . (c) Free Response; Possessed Knowledge: General Conclusion  a,nd D i s c u s s i o n The Possessed Knowledge c o n d i t i o n was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n c e s between the Canadian and New Zealand poems i n terms 139 of response p a t t e r n s . The Possessed Knowledge a n a l y s i s c l a r i f i e d the " e f f e c t s " of Knowledge. Because PK- students, while mistakenly t h i n k i n g t h a t they were d e a l i n g w i t h Canadian poems, favoured the New Zealand poems i n the way Given Knowledge and PK+ students d i d , and because the Canadian poems weren't favoured under Denied Knowledge, the d i f f e r e n c e s i n response p a t t e r n must be a t t r i -buted to the l a b e l l i n g of the poems or to the students' con-ceptions of t h e i r O r i g i n s , not to the f a c t of t h e i r O r i g i n s . The Possessed Knowledge a n a l y s i s a l s o suggested t h a t Knowledge e f f e c t s can be more powerful than was demonstrated under Given Knowledge. Under C o r r e c t l y Possessed Knowledge the Canadian poems were more or l e s s favoured i n a l l c a t e g o r i e s except D e s c r i p t i o n - R e c a p i t u l a t i o n ( t h i s category contains the "mere para-phrase": the response-type of the most dubious value from the viewpoint of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m ) . So the students' responses, when they knew they were d e a l i n g with Canadian poems, were more numerous i n a l l the areas t h a t teachers might v a l u e . In p a r t i c u -l a r , C o r r e c t l y Possessed Knowledge students appear to have valued more h i g h l y , comprehended b e t t e r , and been more i n v o l v e d i n , the Canadian poems. SPECIFIC FINDINGS (2), (3r A), (3, B): FREE RESPONSE: GENERAL DISCUSSION OVER ALL KNOWLEDGE CONDITIONS (a) Some Categories Examined Separately The f r e e response r e s u l t s can "be seen more c l e a r l y i f some important categories are t r a c e d through the d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s . Transfer Place D i s c u s s i o n : This was the category most o f t e n e x h i b i t i n g s i g n i f i -cant d i f f e r e n c e s . Under Denied, Given, and Possessed Know-ledge (except i n PK- where responses were too few to t e s t ) the Canadian poems were favoured. D i f f e r e n c e s were greater i n the l a t t e r two c o n d i t i o n s . I n the poem sub-group analyses, both the RC and BC poems were favoured over the NZ poems. Conclusion: Tran s f e r , as the simple r e c o g n i t i o n of p l a c e , d i d occur w i t h the Canadian poems. I t was increased under Given or Possessed Knowledge. E v a l u a t i o n D i s c u s s i o n : Under t h i s category, Canadian poems were favoured s i g n i f i c a n t l y only under Given and Possessed Knowledge. The 141 Given Knowledge r e s u l t s suggested that the RC poems were the source of these d i f f e r e n c e s . Conclusion: P o s i t i v e E v a l u a t i o n of the Canadian (the RC) poems was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Given and Possessed Knowledge. Comprehension, V i s u a l i s a t i o n , Involvement D i s c u s s i o n and Conclusion: Under these c a t e g o r i e s , Canadian poems were favoured s i g n i f i c a n t l y only under Possessed Knowledge. Transfer S p e c i a l : D i s c u s s i o n and Conclusion: In t h i s category, Canadian poems were favoured only under Given and Possessed Knowledge. The Given Knowledge r e s u l t s suggest that the BC poems were the major source of d i f f e r e n c e . Response patterns i n t h i s category d i d not f u l l y c o i n c i d e with those i n Transfer-Place; they seem more c l o s e l y l i n k e d to Knowledge. (t>) Quantity of W r i t i n g D i s c u s s i o n : Under Denied Knowledge, students wrote more on the BC poems than on the RC poems but t h i s d i f f e r e n c e disappeared 142 under Given and Possessed Knowledge. Under Given or C o r r e c t l y Possessed Knowledge the students tended to w r i t e more on the Canadian poems. The Given Knowledge a n a l y s i s suggests that the RC poems were the source of the d i f f e r e n c e . Although the PK-students wrote more on the Canadian poems, they thought them to be f o r e i g n . They wrote l e s s on what they thought were Canadian poems. Conclusion: Given Knowledge was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h more w r i t i n g on RC poems and l e s s on BC poems. The p a t t e r n was s i m i l a r to that found i n such categories as E v a l u a t i o n , V i s u a l i s a t i o n and Involve-ment. However, the f i n d i n g s i n other areas were not c l e a r - c u t : the PK- students wrote more on what they thought to be f o r e i g n poems, thus r e v e r s i n g the trend under Given Knowledge; two important 2 x 2 Chi-Squares (see above, pp. 1 3 1 » 137) were not s i g n i f i c a n t ; and 3 poem p a i r s (see above, p. 105) produced a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e amount of variance under Quantity of W r i t i n g . (c) The RC/NZ and BC/NZ Conditions The l a b e l s "A Canadian Poem" and "A B.C. Poem" were as s o c i a t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s . D i f f e r e n c e s between the RC and BC poem groupings occurred under Given Knowledge but not under Denied Knowledge (they could not be measured under Possessed Knowledge). The d i f f e r e n c e s , t h e r e f o r e , appear to have depended upon the l a b e l s given, i n concert w i t h the poem p a i r s , r a t h e r than upon any inherent d i f f e r e n c e s i n the poems. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS: THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS Research Question ( l ) The students were unable to d i s t i n g u i s h a Canadian or BC landscape poem from a New Zealand landscape poem read beside i t . Research Question (2) There were no general trends suggesting t h a t the students responded d i f f e r e n t l y to the Canadian and New Zealand poem samples when they were not t o l d of the O r i g i n s of the samples. Research Question ( j ) There was considerable evidence that students respon-ded d i f f e r e n t l y to the Canadian and New Zealand poem samples when they were t o l d of the O r i g i n s of the samples. They favoured the Canadian poems, o f t e n s t r o n g l y , i n almost every response category. Response d i f f e r e n c e s were even gr e a t e r w i t h those students who, beyond being t o l d of poem O r i g i n s , a c t u a l l y r e t a i n e d a Knowledge of what those O r i g i n s were. SPECIFIC FINDINGS (4): FREE RESPONSE: SIGNIFICANT ADJECTIVALS In t h i s a n a l y s i s ( l i k e Quantity of W r i t i n g , a product of supplementary Content A n a l y s i s ) I made an e f f o r t to capture the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e / a f f e c t i v e colour of responses. (Iuse the term " a d j e c t i v a l s " not grammatically but to cover words and 144 phrases t h a t students used to describe t h e i r emotional responses to the whole poem.) The a d j e c t i v a l s c a r r y one beyond the some-what c o l o u r l e s s o b j e c t i v i t y of content a n a l y s i s c a t e g o r i e s . My method was t o take, out of the fr e e response pro-t o c o l s , any a d j e c t i v a l s t h a t appeared to encapsulate the t o t a l e f f e c t , upon the student, of the landscape-in-the-poem. Such a d j e c t i v a l s were then placed i n t h e i r p a i r s — o n e set per student — u n d e r the r e s p e c t i v e poem heads and Knowledge con d i t i o n s (see Table X I I I and Appendix IV, B). My aim was to e s t a b l i s h whether patterns of a f f e c t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n were present between poems and between Knowledge c o n d i t i o n s . The f o l l o w i n g patterns emerged: 1. Most students, of those who d i d use a d j e c t i v a l s i n the manner described, d i d d i f f e r e n t i a t e between poems by them. 2. D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n d i d f o l l o w p a t t e r n s , among students, f o r each poem p a i r . The l i k e n e s s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n between poems was c l e a r . As double-class groups, students tended to see each poem i n a s i m i l a r l i g h t and to d i f f e r e n t i a t e poems i n s i m i l a r ways. For example, 5 d i f f e r e n t students a p p l i e d the word sad to "To An E x p a t r i a t e . " The words depressing, depression, barren, morbid, and l i f e l e s s were used by 5 d i f f e r e n t students to c h a r a c t e r i z e " H i l l Country." 3. The d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n can be h i g h l i g h t e d by the a p p l i c a t i o n of the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l p r i n c i p l e . I used the "Evalua-t i v e " p o l a r i t y - c l u s t e r o f f e r e d by Osgood. I t contains such 14-5 a d j e c t i v e p a i r s as: good-bad, b e a u t i f u l - u g l y , and Clean-'s d i r t y . J I c a l l e d each p o l e " p o s i t i v e " and " n e g a t i v e . " I s c o r e d o n l y n e g a t i v e s , s i n c e t h e y were more c l e a r - c u t , and I s c o r e d o n l y where the s t u d e n t p r o v i d e d a complete a d j e c -t i v a l p a i r by which t o judge. The example o f such s c o r i n g ( T a b l e X I I I ) comes from co n d e n s i n g t h e a d j e c t i v a l p o l a r i -t i e s f o r poem p a i r 1 ("In t h e V a l l e y o f Wenkchemna"/"Hill C o u n t r y " ) . Those poem p a i r s i n which the s c o r e s f o r each poem were s e p a r a t e d by a t l e a s t 3 p o i n t s g e n e r a t e d t h e p a t t e r n o f n e g a t i v e s shown i n Ta b l e XIV. S i x New Z e a l a n d poems s c o r e d n e g a t i v e but o n l y 1 Canadian. The p a t t e r n may suggest t h a t Canadian s t u d e n t s do have a d i f f e r e n t , " b r i g h t e r , " f e e l i n g f o r t h e i r own l i t e r a t u r e . I f p ursued i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y might o f f e r a s u b s t a n t i a l commentary upon t h e s u p p o s e d l y Canadian themes r e f e r r e d t o e a r l i e r , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e d e a l i n g w i t h h a r d s h i p , g a r r i s o n s , s u r v i v a l , and t h e l i k e . F u r t h e r e n q u i r y , which does seem w a r r a n t e d , might employ c o n v e n t i o n a l s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l t e c h n i q u e s , u s i n g t h e a d j e c t i v a l s o f f e r e d by t h e s e s t u d e n t s . 146 TABLE X I I I SIGNIFICANT ADJECTIVALS " I N THE VALLEY OF WENKCHEMNA"/"HILL COUNTRY" Denied Knowledge Canadian New Z e a l a n d d i s t u r b i n g d i s t u r b i n g , b l e a k , d e p r e s -i n g freedom d i e d , n e v e r t o be f r e e a g a i n f e e l r e a l l y good n o t h i n g b e a u t i f u l t h i n g s wiped out b e a u t i f u l c o l d , l o n e l y , o l d e r , n o t n e a r l y so b e a u t i f u l G i v e n Knowledge Canadian New Z e a l a n d l i f e , freedom, l o v e , h a p p i n e s s d e a t h , sad d e p r e s s i o n summer, a l o n e [ + ] b a r r e n , empty summer, l i g h t e r m o r b i d easy, a l i v e , f r e e suspense, l i f e l e s s , dead, robbed happy, r e s p o n s i v e , f l u s h f r e s h c o l d and u n d e c i d e d , d r y , h o t , s t u f f y warm, happy, g l a d c o n t e n t , p e a c e f u l u n s e t t l e s / h o r r i b l e t r i v i a l [ - ] a l i v e sad TABLE XIV SCORES (NEGATIVES) PER POST HOC SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL Poems 1,2 3,4 9,10 11,12 15,16 17,18 23,24 Canada 0 1 1 3 9 1 '• 1 O r i g i n s N e w Z e a l a n d 11 16 4 8 3 7 . 12 Predominant O r i g i n NZ NZ NZ NZ CAN NZ NZ 4. The two Knowledge c o n d i t i o n s might have i n f l u e n c e d w h i c h a d j e c t i v a l s were chosen. Over a l l poem p a i r s t h e r e was, under G i v e n Knowledge, an i n c r e a s e i n t h e number o f nega-• t i v e s from 35 t o 42 w i t h t h e New Z e a l a n d poems. The Canadian f i g u r e s were s t a b l e . Poem Canadian New Z e a l a n d Knowledge Denied G i v e n 16 15 35 42 Such a movement, a l b e i t s l i g h t , might i n d i c a t e t h a t G i v e n Knowledge s t r e n g t h e n e d any sensed " b r i g h t n e s s " i n t h e Canadian p o e m s — o r i t s converse i n t h e New Z e a l a n d poems. N o t i c e t h i s s t u d e n t * s remark: 148 Reading poem one, and not knowing t h e poem i s r e f e r r i n g t o a Non-Canadian o p i n i o n , you can t e l l t h e way he o n l y b r i n g s out t h e u g l y p a r t o f t h e p r a i r i e s . [ G i v e n Knowledge] And t h i s : The way i t d e s c r i b e s t h e b e a u t i f u l wonders of our c o u n t r y . . . . l i k e our c o u n t r y many poems a r e c r e a t e d w i t h f e e l i n g and beauty t h a t i s a w e - i n s p i r i n g . [ G i v e n Knowledge] The p o s s i b i l i t y o f a Knowledge e f f e c t s u g g e s t s , a t l e a s t , a more r i g o r o u s e x p e r i m e n t a l e n q u i r y . C o n c l u s i o n : The number o f n e g a t i v e l y seen New Z e a l a n d poems exceeded t h e Canadian by 6 poems t o 1. The t r e n d a g a i n s t t h e New Z e a l a n d poems may have been s t r e n g t h e n e d under t h e G i v e n Knowledge c o n d i t i o n . Both f i n d i n g s s h o u l d be r e g a r d e d as d e p a r t u r e p o i n t s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h r a t h e r t h a n as " r e s u l t s . " SPECIFIC FINDINGS (5): FREE RESPONSE: TRANSFER (a) D i r e c t Statements Some s t u d e n t s o f f e r e d , i n t h e i r f r e e r e s p o n s e s , what might be c a l l e d s e t - p i e c e s on t h e t r a n s f e r i s s u e : Perhaps t h e r e a s o n i t doesn't g i v e me much f e e l i n g i s because I'm not f a m i l i a r t o t h e p l a c e t h e poet i s t a l k i n g about. [ D e n i e d Knowledge] I f o u n d b o t h poems e n j o y a b l e but I found t h a t I c o u l d r e l a t e t o t h e Canadian poem e a s i e r as perhaps I have e x p e r i e n c e d t h e 149 same f e e l i n g s as t h e o t h e r s . I f i n d i t h a r d t o i n t e r p r e t o r r e l a t e t o poems t h a t a r e from o t h e r c o u n t r i e s o r t a l k about something t h a t I have not e x p e r i e n c e d . [ G i v e n Knowledge] I f e e l i t was a good poem t o some p e o p l e but t o me i t was a bore because t h i s t y p e of t h i n g does not a p p e a l t o me due t o I have never e x p e r i e n c e d a n y t h i n g l i k e i t . [ D e n i e d Knowledge] I can r e l a t e t o t h i s poem because o f t e n I have been i n t h a t s i t u a t i o n camping d u r i n g t h e summer. Maybe t h a t i s why i t seems t o be v e r y p e r s o n a l t o me. I r e a l l y l i k e t h i s poem; m o s t l y I can f e e l t h e atmosphere i t p u t s around t h e p e r s o n . . . . [ G i v e n Knowledge] He seems t o e x p r e s s t h e way I f e e l some-t i m e s when I'm a l o n e by m y s e l f v e r y w e l l . I e n j o y e d t h i s poem I guess because I c o u l d r e l a t e i t t o o me own l i f e . [ D e n i e d Knowledge] C l e a r l y t h e s e s t u d e n t s p l a c e c o n s i d e r a b l e s t o r e by t r a n s f e r t o the f a m i l i a r . But t h e s t a t e m e n t s were i s o l a t e d c a s e s . T r a n s f e r - S p e c i a l r e c e i v e d few s c o r e s . Only 15 s t u d e n t s made comments as c l e a r - c u t as t h e ones j u s t quoted;- 10 under G i v e n Knowledge and 5 under Denied. They a r e i n t e r e s t i n g ; but not s u f f i c i e n t l y common f o r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s t o be s a f e l y made from them. (b) The S t r e n g t h o f T r a n s f e r Many s t u d e n t s shaped t h e l a n d s c a p e - i n - t h e - p o e m a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s . The f o l l o w i n g ex-amples were w r i t t e n i n response t o "A View o f R a n g i t o t o " ( p r e s e n t e d as t h e e x c e r p t "A View o f t h e M o u n t a i n " ) . from: A VIEW OF THE MOUNTAIN Harshness o f g o r s e darkens t h e y e l l o w c l i f f - e d g e , And s c a r l e t - f l o w e r e d t r e e s l e a n out t o drop T h e i r shadows on t h e hay below, s e a r c h i n g The water f o r an image always b r o k e n Between t h e in w a r d and r e t u r n i n g s w e l l s . F a r t h e r , beyond t h e r o c k s , c u f f e d by p e r t waves Launches t u g a t t h e i r moorings; and i n t h e c h a n n e l Y a c h t s t h a t s p r i n t e l e g a n t l y down t h e b r e e z e And e a r n e s t l i n e r s d r i v i n g f o r t h e n o r t h . Some r e s p o n s e s : T h i s poem seems t o suggest t h a t mountains a r e r a t h e r f r i g h t e n i n g l y p o w e r f u l . The mountains and t h e sea t o g e t h e r become a l m o s t as one f i l l e d w i t h s t r e n g t h and d i g n i t y . The second poem c r e a t e s v i s i o n s o f a v e r y windy h i l l t o p where few t h i n g s grow on t h e r o c k y ground. And t h e t r e e s t h a t do manage t o s u r v i v e a r e v e r y t w i s t e d . One can see q u i t e f a r from t h i s h i l l , o t h e r mountains i n t h e d i s t a n c e and b o a t s on t h e water. R a t h e r l i k e p l a c e s i n Howe Sound. I t reminds me o f a h a r b o u r up t h e c o a s t o f B.C. when t h e y t a l k about t h e h i g h c l i f f and t a l l t r e e s w i t h t h e bay below. To my (New Zealand) eyes, none o f t h e s e d e s c r i p t i o n s was a c c u r a t e . The scene i n t h e poem i s not as t h e s t u d e n t s d e s c r i b e d i t . T h at, o f c o u r s e , may be u n d e r s t a n d a b l e and even a c c e p t a b l e ; a poem can, l e g i t i m a t e l y , be d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s i n d i f f e r e n t eyes. But t h e s t u d e n t s ' d e s c r i p t i o n s cannot be s u p p o r t e d by t h e poem i t s e l f , by t h e a r t i f a c t . The "mountains and t h e sea t o g e t h e r " do n o t , i n t h e poem, become " f i l l e d w i t h 1 5 1 s t r e n g t h and d i g n i t y " as t h e f i r s t BC s t u d e n t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has i t ; t h e "mountains i n t h e d i s t a n c e " o f t h e second d e s c r i p -t i o n (and as t h e r e would be " i n Howe Sound") a r e not found i n th e poem; and the t a l l t r e e s o f t h e t h i r d d e s c r i p t i o n a r e not th e l e a n i n g t r e e s p o r t r a y e d i n t h e poem ( t h e " v e r y t w i s t e d " t r e e s o f t h e second d e s c r i p t i o n ) . J u s t how s t r o n g , t h e n , might be t h e e f f e c t s o f t r a n s f e r ? I w i l l t a k e t h e q u e s t i o n up i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h ( s ee below, p. 1 7 0 ) . ( c ) Some " F o r e i g n " S t u d e n t s and T r a n s f e r I f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n from a t i n y sample (29) i s a v o i d e d , s e v e r a l p o i n t s a r e worth making about t h e f o r e i g n s t u d e n t s ' r e s p o n s e s . The ( s i x ) Hong Kong Chinese e x h i b i t e d language d i f f i -c u l t i e s . A l l e x cept two responded weakly. The two b e t t e r r e s p o n s e s were m a r k e d l y " d i s t a n c e d . " One responded a g a i n s t t h e G i v e n Knowledge l a b e l : A l t h o u g h he i s not a Canadian h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the P r a i r i e i s f a r more worth t h a n t h e f i r s t poem. [ G i v e n Knowledge] The o t h e r i n t e r p r e t e d t h e s i m p l e d e s c r i p t i v e poem "The Stream" i n c l e a r - c u t m y t h i c terms: He i s grown-ups now. He s t e p i n t o t h e s o c i e t y l i k e everyone d i d . On h i s j o u r n e y , He met a l o t o f t r o u b l e s t e m p t a t i o n e t c . He maybe l o s t and f a l l i n t o a e v i l t r a c k . . . . [ G i v e n Knowledge] T h i s s t u d e n t ' s c e r t a i n t y i n response s u g g e s t s a deep c u l t u r a l 15.2 t r a n s f e r d i f f e r e n t : from t h a t made by Canadian s t u d e n t s t o t h e i r l a n d s c a p e . Three s t u d e n t s from B r i t a i n responded s t r o n g l y t o t h e s u g g e s t i o n o f homesickness i n "To An E x p a t r i a t e . " The s t r e n g t h o f t h e i r r e s p o n s e s s u g g e s t s a n o t h e r form o f t r a n s f e r , but t h e re s p o n s e s were a l s o n i c e l y d i s t a n c e d : I t h i n k t h a t i f I was p r e s e n t e d such a poem about my homeland, i t would g i v e me t h i s f e e l i n g t o o . [ D e n i e d Knowledge] Perhaps t h e r e a s o n i t doesnt g i v e me much f e e l i n g i s because I'm not f a m i l i a r t o t h e p l a c e the. poet i s t a l k i n g about . . . . though . . . . you can f e e l t h e way t h e guy l o n g s f o r home, remembering e v e r y scene o f h i s homeland. [ D e n i e d Knowledge] I e n j o y t h i s poem because i t reminds me t h a t I t o o , am l i v i n g away from my n a t i v e l a n d , and thus the poem has meaning f o r me. I t reminds me o f . . . . [ G i v e n Knowledge] A s t u d e n t from R h o d e s i a saw t h e poem e x c e r p t "Elements" as p o r t r a y i n g a " c o u n t r y somewhere w i t h m i l e s o f open l a n d c o v e r e d w i t h g r a s s . " The poem i n f a c t p r e s e n t s a l a n d s c a p e t h a t i s e n c l o s i n g r a t h e r t h a n open; g r a s s i s ne v e r mentioned on i t s " c l a y , " " d u s t , " and " b l u e v e i n s " o f r a n g e s . The s t u d e n t appears t o have t r e a t e d t h e poem i n t h e way t h e Canadians, r e p o r t e d above, t r e a t e d "A View o f R a n g i t o t o . " F i n a l l y , what s t r u c k me as a p e c u l i a r l y s t r o n g r e sponse t o " C a n t e r b u r y " ( a NZ poem) when I was c o d i n g r e s p o n s e p r o t o c o l s t u r n e d out t o "be w r i t t e n by t h e one s t u d e n t who had l i v e d i n New Z e a l a n d . I f t h e s e r e s p o n s e s were found t o be o f a common ty p e i n a b r o a d e r s t u d y , and i f t e a c h e r s were made f u l l y aware o f them, t h e n t h e t e a c h e r s might be more a b l e t o see t h e d i f f i -c u l t i e s and meet t h e needs o f t h e immigrant s t u d e n t . CHAPTER V SOME IMPLICATIONS AND SOME FUTURE RESEARCH SOME IMPLICATIONS F i n d i n g s from t h i s s t u d y , i n s o f a r as th e y a p p l y t o p e d a g o g i c a l i s s u e s , must he weighed a g a i n s t the many o t h e r con-s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t b e a r upon e d u c a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . Even more i m p o r t a n t , t h e p r e s e n t l i n e o f s t u d y must be extended and deepened b e f o r e r e s u l t s a r e a c t e d upon by e d u c a t i o n a l p l a n n e r s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , an e f f o r t s h o u l d be made t o o b t a i n f i n d i n g s from beyond t h a t group o f s t u d e n t s who d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between poems under a p a r t i c u l a r c a t e g o r y and so produced d a t a (Comparative s c o r e s ) from which I c o u l d draw c o n c l u s i o n s f o r t h a t c a t e g o r y . Such a r e s e a r c h e f f o r t w i l l not be w i t h o u t dangers o f f a l s i f i -c a t i o n — t h e t r u t h about any p o e t r y r e a d i n g may be t h a t o n l y a p r o p o r t i o n o f r e a d e r s w i l l have the c a p a c i t y o r d e s i r e t o d i f f e r -e n t i a t e between poems i n a l l f a c e t s o f t h e i r e x p r e s s e d r e s p o n s e s . F o r the p r e s e n t , e v e r y c a u t i o n and d e l i m i t a t i o n kept i n mind, the p r e s e n t r e s u l t s do demand t h a t E n g l i s h e d u c a t o r s , e s p e c i a l l y i n Canada, q u e s t i o n some o f t h e i r assumptions and pursue some new q u e s t i o n s . The p r o m o t i o n a l r h e t o r i c r e v i e w e d i n Chapter 1 must be r e f i n e d . My r e s u l t s s u ggest t h a t Canadian s t u d e n t s might r e s p o n d t o l a b e l s , o r t o a n a t i o n a l f e e l i n g c a l l e d f o r t h by l a b e l s , r a t h e r t h a n from any i d e n t i t y i n h e r e n t i n t h e s t u d e n t s * r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Canadian poems. I t i s 155 p o s s i b l e , t h e n , t h a t a deeper i d e n t i t y has s t i l l t o be d i s -c o v e r e d by s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s t u d e n t s ; t h a t , f o r them, l i t t l e o r no d i s t i n c t i v e l y Canadian l i t e r a t u r e e x i s t s ; and t h a t t h o s e t e a c h e r s who r e p o r t immediate e n t h u s i a s m f o r Canadian l i t e r a -t u r e a r e r e p o r t i n g t h e enthusiasm o f s t u d e n t p a t r i o t s l e a r n i n g o f t h e i r l a n d and i t s c u l t u r e r a t h e r t h a n o f Canadians r e a d i l y r e c o g n i z i n g and r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e i r own e x p e r i e n c e s and n o s t a l g i a s . T r a n s f e r , t o move i n t o t h e t h e o r y , i s not r e a d i l y p u r c h a s e d . When i t was o b t a i n e d i n t h i s s t u d y , i f r e s p o n s e s under T r a n s f e r - P l a c e s i g n i f i e d t h a t i t was, i t d i d not n e c e s s a r -i l y l e a d t o r i c h e r r e s p o n s e . I f , on t h e o t h e r hand, t r a n s f e r S was s e t up o n l y by the l a b e l l i n g o f t h e poems (and was t h u s based upon p a t r i o t i c f e e l i n g s o r perhaps on an i n c r e a s e d con-s c i o u s n e s s o f p l a c e ) t h e n t r a n s f e r , s i n c e i t was t h e n a s s o c i -a t e d w i t h r i c h e r response p r o f i l e s , may v e r y w e l l l e a d t o t h o s e s e c o n d a r y e f f e c t s ( i n t e r e s t , engagement, i n v o l v e m e n t , and enthusiasm) r e v i e w e d i n Chapter I . The argument f o r r e g i o n a l l o c a l i t y as a l i t e r a r y s t a r t i n g p o i n t was not s u p p o r t e d i n any c l e a r - c u t manner. There was p a r t i a l s u p p o r t i n t h e s p e c i a l r e s ponse t o BC poems: but t h e c r o s s - c u r r e n t a p p a r e n t l y s e t up by t h e g r e a t e r p r e s t i g e o f t h e l a b e l "A Canadian Poem" ( o r , c o n v e r s e l y , by t h e BC l a b e l ' s c a l l i n g out a "low s e l f - i m a g e " ) s u g g e s t s t h a t Bowering, C r a w f o r d and o t h e r s (above, p. 12) s h o u l d r e - c a s t t h e i r arguments. The 156 b e s t Canadian V l o c a l i t y " w i t h which t o i n i t i a l l y engage BC s t u d e n t s may w e l l be Canada i t s e l f . Not, however, i f t h e s t u d e n t i s o f f o r e i g n b i r t h o r e x p e r i e n c e . W h i l e t h e sample o f f o r e i g n s t u d e n t s examined i n t h i s s t u d y was t o o s m a l l f o r any g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t o be made, th e s t u d e n t s ' r e s p o n s e s under " t r a n s f e r " were s u f f i c i e n t l y a t v a r i a n c e w i t h t h o s e o f t h e main s t u d e n t sample t o demand t h a t t e a c h e r s l o o k c l o s e l y a t t h e i r own immigrant s t u d e n t s , p o s s i b l y even employing t h e f r e e r e s p o n s e t e c h n i q u e - t o examine s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e s . The immigrant s t u d e n t may need s p e c i a l m a t e r i a l and g u i d a n c e t o meet the problems o f , f i r s t , a d j u s t ment and l i t e r -a r y engagement, t h e n o f c r i t i c a l t e m p e r i n g . Problems w i t h s i m p l e l a n d s c a p e poems (and t h e m y t h o l o g i e s t h e y c a r r y ) may be compounded i n p o e t r y o f s o c i a l and s p i r i t u a l e x p e r i e n c e . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y a r e a l s o s a l u t a r y as t h e y a p p l y t o t h e f r e q u e n t c o m p l a i n t s t h a t Canadian s t u d e n t s have l i t t l e knowledge o f Canadian authors."*" Such c o m p l a i n t s o f t e n c a r r y o v e r t o n e s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t l i t e r a r y s t a n d a r d s t h e m s e l v e s , not j u s t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f n a t i o n a l i s m , s u f f e r by t h i s i g n o r a n c e . I f , however, Canadian l i t e r a t u r e i s not i n h e r e n t l y d i s t i n c t i v e i n t h e s t u d e n t s ' eyes, i f t h e y cannot even r e c o g n i z e i t as b e i n g Canadian, t h e n t h e i r f a i l u r e ' t o know much about Canadian a u t h o r s i s l e s s t h e l i t e r a r y crime t h a t innuendo has i t t o be, and more the c u l t u r a l misdemeanour t h a t i t might p r o p e r l y r e m a i n . Perhaps s t u d e n t s w i l l have t o be shown how t o l o o k a t Canadian l i t e r a t u r e b e f o r e t h e y a r e e x p e c t e d t o be f a m i l i a r w i t h w r i t e r s and t i t l e s . 157 The Canadian L i t e r a t u r e p r o m o t i o n a s i d e , t h e r e s u l t s of t he p r e s e n t s t u d y s h o u l d c h a l l e n g e t e a c h e r s , as has Barnes i n more g e n e r a l terms, t o ask how t h e y would e x p l o i t i n i t i a l -r e s p o nse p a t t e r n s l i k e t h o s e e x h i b i t e d here o r how t h e y would r e c o n c i l e such p a t t e r n s w i t h t h e i r p r e s e n t approaches. They s h o u l d c o n s i d e r whether t h e j u d i c i o u s l a b e l l i n g o f poems might enable some s t u d e n t s t o r e a c h q u i c k l y and by th e m s e l v e s some o f th e r e s p o n s e g o a l s t h e y d i r e c t t h e i r s t u d e n t s t o . F u r t h e r , R i c h a r d s fou nd h i s s t u d e n t s t o l o s e t h e i r c r i t i c a l b e a r i n g s w i t h o u t a p o e t ' s name t o d i r e c t them; I b e g i n t o ask how w e l l Canadian s t u d e n t s would r e c o g n i z e and how a p p r o p r i a t e l y t h e y would r e s p o n d t o , say, Wordsworth i f t h e y were d e n i e d knowledge of h i s a u t h o r s h i p . Would t r a n s f e r metamorphose t h e Lake D i s t r i c t i n t o a p i n e - c l a d BC mountain l o c a l e ? How much would i t m a t t e r i f i t d i d ? More s u r e l y , t h e l a b e l l i n g o f poems i n c l a s s would seem to c a l l f o r t h h i g h e r i n i t i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between poems, i f t h a t i s sought f o r any r e a s o n . (Of course t o l a b e l o r group poems i n t e x t s i s t o e l i m i n a t e t e a c h e r c h o i c e and, p o s s i b l y , r e s p o n s e freedom.) The l a c k o f l a b e l l i n g , on t h e o t h e r hand, might r e q u i r e more s t u d e n t d i s c u s s i o n o r more t e a c h e r - d i r e c t e d a t t e n t i o n t o t h e poem i n o r d e r t h a t s t u d e n t s r e a c h a c o n s c i o u s c r i t i c a l p o s i t i o n . However, t h o s e who argue t h a t " I n t r o d u c i n g e x t e r n a l e v i d e n c e such as a u t h o r b i o g r a p h y . . . . does not l e a d 2 t o a c r i t i c a l r e a d i n g o f a poem" may be m i s s i n g t h e p o i n t i f t h e y a p p l y t h e i r d i c t u m t o o r i g o r o u s l y t o h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . 15'8 The r i c h e s t r e s p o n s e s i n t h i s s t u d y s u p p o r t and e x t e n d S q u i r e ' s f i n d i n g s : A s s o c i a t i o n o f the elements i n a s t o r y w i t h the p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s o f t h e r e a d e r i s dangerous t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o n l y when un-c o n t r o l l e d . I n most cases r e a d e r s seem t o p e r c e i v e f a r t o o few o f t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . ^ The r e s u l t s pose new, f i n e r , q u e s t i o n s ( see below, Some F u t u r e Research) r a t h e r t h a n p r o v i d e answers. But t h e y do no t t h r e a t e n t h e p l a c e o f Canadian l i t e r a t u r e i n t h e s c h o o l s — t h e y s t r e n g t h e n i t . When t h e p r e s e n t s t u d e n t s knew o r thought t h e y knew t h a t c e r t a i n poems were Canadian, t h o s e s t u d e n t s who made any d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n "between poems f a v o u r e d t h e Canadian poems, o f t e n s t r o n g l y , i n alm o s t e v e r y f a c e t o f measured r e s p o n s e . Such i n i t i a l r e s p onse p a t t e r n s must suggest t h a t C a n a d i a n poems, p r e s e n t e d as Canadian, would s e r v e w e l l as a base f o r c u l t u r a l e d u c a t i o n i n t h i s c o u n t r y and would o f f e r , f o r some s t u d e n t s , an a t t r a c t i v e s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r w i d e r l i t e r a r y e x p l o r a t i o n and growth. SOME FUTURE RESEARCH I n t r o d u c t i o n L A s k i n g , as i t d i d , T a l b e r t ' s "grand t o u r q u e s t i o n s , " t h i s s t u d y found i t s j u s t i f i c a t i o n as much i n t h e l i n e s o f e n q u i r y i t p r o m i s e d t o open, as i n ' , any c e r t a i n f i n d i n g s i t seemed l i k e l y t o produce. F u t u r e r e s e a r c h w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n two s e c t i o n s : t h e f i r s t d e a l s w i t h t h e s p e c i f i c p o s t d o c t o r a l 159 a n a l y s e s and e n q u i r i e s which were b u i l t i n t o the p r e s e n t d e s i g n ; t h e second d e a l s w i t h d i r e c t i o n s and methods not y e t ' so c l o s e l y mapped. F u t u r e R e s e a r c h A l r e a d y i n T r a i n : " A d d i t i o n a l I n s t r u m e n t s and P r o c e d u r e s " The response m a t e r i a l g e n e r a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y i s open t o much more a n a l y s i s t h a n was p o s s i b l e o r d e s i r a b l e i n t h e p r i m a r y p u r s u i t o f t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s t h r o u g h t h e f r e e -r e s p onse t e c h n i q u e . I n t h e f o l l o w i n g l i s t t h e e a r l i e s t a n a l y s e s mentioned a r e t h o s e most l i k e l y t o b e a r upon t h e e s t a b l i s h e d r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s . "How Much Do You L i k e These Poems?" (Appendix IV, I ) T h i s L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e was used t o gauge s t u d e n t s ' p r e f e r e n c e s between poems. Some f i n d i n g s a r e a l r e a d y a v a i l a b l e . Some o f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t f o l l o w . The two e s t i m a t i o n s o f p r e f e r e n c e — c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s C a t e g o r y 1 ( E v a l u a t i o n ) and t h e L i k e r t S c a l e — w e r e h i g h l y and p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d (see above, p. 6 l ) . There was no r e a l d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e p o p u l a r i t y o f t h e Canadian and New Z e a l a n d poem groups under Denied Knowledge (see above, p. 105). There was a s i g n i f i c a n t , b ut s l i g h t , ^ r e l a t i o n s h i p whereby t h e poems R e c o g n i z e d were t h e poems most l i k e d . 160 ( C a n a d i a n poems, /£• = .16***; New Z e a l a n d p o e m s , . 1 6 * * * . ) There was a s i g n i f i c a n t , hut s l i g h t , r e l a t i o n s h i p whereby t h e PK- s t u d e n t s p r e f e r r e d t h e New Z e a l a n d poems (th o u g h t t o be Canadian) and the PK+ s t u d e n t s p r e f e r r e d t h e Canadian poems >v25***). There was a s i g n i f i c a n t , but s l i g h t , o r d e r e f f e c t whereby th e f i r s t poem p r e s e n t e d t o t h e s t u d e n t s was t h e one t h e y p r e f e r r e d (^= .17***). There was a s i g n i f i c a n t , but s l i g h t , r e l a t i o n s h i p whereby t h e poem f i r s t t r e a t e d i n f r e e r e s ponse was t h e one p r e f e r r e d .27***). There was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p whereby t h e poem about w h i c h most was w r i t t e n was t h e poem most l i k e d = .35***). There were s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( r a n g i n g from s t r o n g t o moderate c o r r e l a t i o n s ) between p r e f e r e n c e and many co n t e n t a n a l y s i s cai:egories--whereby t h e poems responded t o i n each c a t e g o r y were t h e poems most l i k e d ( E v a l u a t i o n , / ^ = .67***; Comprehension,/ C - = .51***; T r a n s f e r - S p e c i a l , . 5 1 * * * 5 V i s u a l i s a t i o n , / l ^ = .45***; I n v o l v e m e n t , / V = .60***; Depth, /C- .58***). The c a t e g o r i e s i n w h i c h t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p were I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , Form, and Dictums. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t , and moderate, r e l a t i o n s h i p 161 whereby the poem s t u d e n t s s e l e c t e d t o d i s c u s s w i t h f r i e n d s was the poem most l i k e d by them (•<- = . 5 * * * ) -;0 There was a s i g n i f i c a n t , but s l i g h t , r e l a t i o n s h i p whereby t h e g i r l s r a t e d t h e Canadian poems h i g h e r t h a n t h e New Z e a l a n d poems w h i l e t h e boys r a t e d t h e New Z e a l a n d poems h i g h e r .11***). "Which Poem Would You P r e f e r t o D i s c u s s ? " ( Appendix IV, J) T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e a s s e s s e d t h e s t u d e n t s ' d e s i r e t o d i s c u s s e i t h e r poem w i t h f r i e n d s , and t h e i r s t a t e d r e a s o n s . T e n t a t i v e f i n d i n g s i n c l u d e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between PK+ and PK- (2 x 2 X 2 = 6.62**) whereby s t u d e n t s p r e f e r r e d t o d i s c u s s t h e Canadian poem o r t h e poem thought t o be Canadian. T h i s f i n d i n g c r o s s - v a l i d a t e s and extends the f i n d i n g s under t h e c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s c a t e g o r i e s . To respond p o s i t i v e l y under t h e c a t e g o r i e s may a l s o have been t o f e e l p o s i t i v e l y about t h e poem as a p i e c e f o r c l a s s r o o m d i s c u s s i o n . "Your O p i n i o n s " (Appendix IV, M) T h i s i n s t r u m e n t p a r t l y a s c e r t a i n e d s t u d e n t s * a t t i t u d e s towards Canadian L i t e r a t u r e as a whole and s t u d e n t s ' a s s e s s -ments o f a d u l t a t t i t u d e s . I n d i c a t i o n s a r e t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e d p r o f e s s o r s and t e a c h e r s t o h o l d a h i g h e r o p i n i o n o f Canadian l i t e r a t u r e t h a n o t h e r a d u l t s (X = 26.71***) and t h a t t h e y , t h e s t u d e n t s , h e l d t h e h i g h e r o p i n i o n a l s o (X* = 11.79***). The Nature o f P o s s e s s e d Knowledge The P o s s e s s e d Knowledge phenomenon r a i s e s an impor-t a n t q u e s t i o n : why d i d a l l G i v e n Knowledge s t u d e n t s not c o r r e c t l y P o s s e s s Knowledge? I t i s p r o b a b l e t h a t r e a s o n s a p a r t from t h e s e m a n t i c c o n t e n t o f t h e l a b e l s e x p l a i n t h i s — I have sug g e s t e d q u e s t i o n f l a w s , poor " r e a d i n g , " f a t i g u e , d i s t r u s t , 7 and so on.' S t i l l , i t seems i m p o r t a n t t o f i n d out whether - t h e PK- group o r some s t u d e n t s e x c l u d e d from t h e PK a n a l y s i s d i d i n f a c t r e . i e c t t h e l a b e l s because t h e y d i s a g r e e d w i t h them o r be—\ cause t h e y d i d not t h i n k them i m p o r t a n t . Such might be t h e case where s t u d e n t s d i d not p o s s e s s a s t r o n g sense o f p l a c e o r f e e l s t r o n g l y "pro-Canadian." Compare t h e l a t t e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s , f o r example, w i t h t h e response o f t h i s s t u d e n t : The f i r s t poem r e p r e s e n t e d t h e p e o p l e o f B.C. No, not because i t s a i d B.C. poem, a l t h o u g h  t h a t t r i g g e r e d me t a k i n g a l o o k . But because of our mountains. . . . [ i t a l i c s mine] An i n d i r e c t a pproach t o t h i s q u e s t i o n , but one w h i c h might r e -l a t e c l o s e l y t o c l a s s r o o m p r a c t i c e s , would be t o r e p l i c a t e t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y u s i n g d i f f e r e n t means o f a l e r t i n g s t u d e n t s t o O r i g i n s . A t e a c h e r ' s p o i n t i n g out o f O r i g i n s , i f t h a t c o u l d be done w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g c o n t r o l s , might c r e a t e a much h i g h e r degree o f C o r r e c t l y P o s s e s s e d Knowledge t h a n i n t h i s s t u d y . I n s t r u m e n t s c o u l d be d e s i g n e d t o m o n i t o r any s t u d e n t r e j e c t i o n o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n on O r i g i n s . 163 A n o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e s t u d e n t s ' r e v e r s a l o f t h e l a b e l s i s t h a t some s t u d e n t s might have p r e f e r r e d t o t h i n k t h a t t h e poem t h e y f a v o u r e d was Canadian. Ways might be d e v i s e d i n w hich t o t e s t t h i s f a s c i n a t i n g p o s s i b i l i t y . As a p a r t o f ongoing r e s e a r c h , I am a t p r e s e n t s e e k i n g more i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e P o s s e s s e d Knowledge gr o u p s . I i n t r o -duce some t e n t a t i v e f i n d i n g s i n v i e w o f t h e groups* s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t . There was a f a i r l y e q u a l b a l a n c e , i n b o t h g r o u p s , between t h e s e x e s ; PK- PK+ Male 31 79 Female 37 73 X 2 = 0.76. (X , t e s t i n g f o r any d i f f e r e n c e s . = O . 7 6 — n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t ) . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e was a s l i g h t edge between t h e s e x e s , t h e males were more o f t e n c o r r e c t . The b a l a n c e i s n o t e w o r t h y i n t h a t most s t u d i e s show females t o be s u p e r i o r " p e r f o r m e r s " i n most f a c e t s o f l i t e r a r y s t u d y and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a t s c h o o l l e v e l s . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (X = % 70**) between t h e two groups i n t h e amount o f Canadian r e a d i n g each 164 c l a i m e d t o have d o n e — i n i t s r e s p o n s e t o the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e : "How Much Canadian L i t e r a t u r e . . . Have You Read on Your Own?" (Appendix I I , K ) . PK- PK+ Amount o f Reading More Reading L e s s Reading 25 82 38 60 if- = 5.70 Of t h e PK- s t u d e n t s , 60$ c l a i m e d t o have done " L e s s " r e a d i n g ; 58$ o f t h e PK+ s t u d e n t s t o have done "More;" The a s s o c i a t i o n o f PK+ w i t h more Can a d i a n r e a d i n g s u g g e s t s , among r i v a l h y p o t h e s e s , t h a t p a s t r e a d i n g e x p e r i e n c e i n Canadian l i t e r a t u r e r e n d e r e d s t u d e n t s more a l e r t t o t h e Canadian l a b e l s . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (X = 10.32***) between t h e two groups i n terms o f t h e poem p r e f e r e n c e s t h e y i n d i c a t e d on the L i k e r t s c a l e : PK- PK+ P r e f e r the N.„.Z.;, poem the Canadian poem 34 46 15 64 yr = io. 32**^ 165 The PK- s t u d e n t s g e n e r a l l y p r e f e r r e d t h e New Z e a l a n d poem ( w h i c h t h e y thought t o he C a n a d i a n ) , the PK+ s t u d e n t s g e n e r a l l y p r e -f e r r e d t h e Canadian. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (X = 6.62**) between t h e two groups i n terms o f t h e poems t h e y s a i d t h e y would p r e f e r t o d i s c u s s w i t h f r i e n d s ( a s s e s s e d by t h e Q u e s t i o n -n a i r e : "Which Poem Would You P r e f e r t o D i s c u s s ? " ) : PK- PK+ The C a n a d i a n poem f i r s t D i s c u s s The N.Z. poem f i r s t X 2 = 6.62** 60$ o f t h e PK- s t u d e n t s s t a t e d t h a t t h e y would p r e f e r t o d i s c u s s t h e NZ poem ( w h i c h t h e y t h o u g h t t o be Canadian) and 59$ o f t h e PK+ s t u d e n t s s t a t e d t h e y would p r e f e r t o d i s c u s s t h e Canadian poem. The Poems A n a l y z e d I n t h e f u t u r e , t h e poem p a i r s might be examined i n l i g h t o f t h e r e s p o n s e s g i v e n by t h e p r e s e n t s t u d e n t s . T h i s e x a m i n a t i o n might i n c l u d e , e s p e c i a l l y , an a n a l y s i s o f t h e poem p a i r s w h i c h s t u d e n t s d i s c r i m i n a t e d l e a s t and most under R e c o g n i t i o n . Poem p a i r s o f t h e l a t t e r t y p e might e x t e n d R a n k i n ' s f i n d i n g s r e "queerness" o r " d i f f e r e n c e " ( s e e above, p. 14). 26 85 * 39 59 166 Sex as a V a r i a b l e The d e s i g n p r o v i d e d t h a t c l a s s groups be randomly-b l o c k e d by sex i n o r d e r t h a t any d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f sex on response p a t t e r n s might be l a t e r a s s e s s e d . R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between the Content A n a l y s i s C a t e g o r i e s A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s m i g h t be made, e x a m i n i n g t h e r e l a -t i o n s h i p between r e s p o n s e s i n t h e v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s . "Your O p i n i o n s " (Appendix IV, M) T h i s i n s t r u m e n t a s c e r t a i n e d something o f t h e s t u d e n t s * p a s t e x p e r i e n c e w i t h Canadian l i t e r a t u r e and t h e i r d e s i r e f o r more. (The i n s t r u m e n t s e r v e d a l s o t o check E x t e n s i v e Canadian Reading.) I n d i c a t i o n s a r e , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e s e s t u -dents would l i k e more Canadian l i t e r a t u r e i n c l a s s (X?= 59-15***)' Can L i t i n C l a s s Amount More Le s s Had i n 64 398 t h e p a s t D e s i r e d i n 159 284 t h e f u t u r e x = 59.15* Comparison w i t h Teachers Teachers or o t h e r s might a c t as s u b j e c t s i n a " r e p l i -1 6 7 c a t i o n " o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y ; and t e a c h e r s might a t t e m p t t o a n t i c i p a t e ( e x p o s t f a c t o ) t h e s t u d e n t s ' r e s p o n s e s , p r e f e r e n c e r a t i n g s , and a d j e c t i v a l p o l a r i t i e s as t h o s e were d i s c o v e r e d i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y . Poem O r i g i n s O u t s i d e Canada The a t t r i b u t i o n , by s t u d e n t s , o f O r i g i n s t o t h e poems where t h e l a t t e r were not tho u g h t t o be Canadian i s w o r t h d e s c r i b i n g . Such d e s c r i p t i o n might examine, e s p e c i a l l y , t h e image o f E n g l a n d and S c o t l a n d t h a t many s t u d e n t s p r e s e n t e d t h r o u g h t h e i r p l a c e m e n t s . The r e l a t i v e l y few g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a s i n w h i c h O r i g i n s were su g g e s t e d might a l s o be examined. Order E f f e c t s A d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n o f o r d e r e f f e c t s c o u l d be made. C r i t i c a l Q u a l i t i e s The q u a l i t y o f f r e e - r e s p o n s e w r i t i n g might be examined. A s t u d y might i n c l u d e a n a l y s i s o f: t y p i c a l r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s , t h e misuse o f f o r m a l terms, and s t y l e . S t o c k Responses: " E c o l o g y " A f u r t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s might be made o f the many r e s p o n s e s i n which t h e p r e s e n t s t u d e n t s * i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s were h e a v i l y c o l o u r e d by t h e c u r r e n t c o n c e r n w i t h e n v i r o n m e n t a l damage. Examples o f such r e s p o n s e s i n c l u d e : 168 o f " H i l l C ountry" "Gouged out , g a p i n g c l a y . " C l a y s y m b o l i z e s what man has done. The once " w h i t e sky" and " y e l l o w broom" s h a l l be no more. Man has used up a l l o f t h e b e a u t y and t o r e p l a c e i t he has o n l y l e f t b a r r e n n e s s , d e s t r u c t i o n . o f "A View o f R a n g i t o t o " The y a c h t j u s t seems t o s p o i l t h e p i c t u r e . I t j u s t seems t o me a p l a c e l i k e t h a t w i l l n ot l a s t t o o much l o n g e r i f y a c h t s a r e a l r e a d y g o i n g by i t . P r e t t y soon t h e y ' l l be making s t o p s t h e r e and t h e p l a c e w i l l n e v er be t h e same. The e f f e c t s o f such p r e o c c u p a t i o n s on l i t e r a r y r e s p o n s e and c r i t i c i s m s h o u l d be r e v i e w e d . Other D i r e c t i o n s These s u g g e s t i o n s i n v o l v e s e p a r a t e s t u d i e s . They can be seen p a r t l y as f u r t h e r a r e a s f o r e n q u i r y , p a r t l y as methodo-l o g i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e s . A r e a s f o r E n q u i r y R e p l i c a t i o n s There i s much scope f o r t h e n e a r - r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . To i n v o l v e more s t u d e n t s i n the f i n a l a n a l y s e s t h e s e might use d i f f e r e n t methods o f p r o v i d i n g t h e s t u d e n t s w i t h G i v e n Knowledge and might d i r e c t s t u d e n t s t o p o i n t up t h e d i f f e r e n c e s t h e y f e e l i n t h e i r r e s p o n s e s t o t h e poems. There a r e many p o s s i b i l i t i e s worth c o n s i d e r i n g : u s i n g a s i m i l a r s t u d e n t sample w i t h t h e same poems ( t o v e r i f y p r e s e n t r e s u l t s ) , w i t h d i f f e r e n t poems ( l a n d s c a p e and non-l a n d s c a p e ) , w i t h p r o s e e x t r a c t s , w i t h l a b e l s s u p p l i e d a t d i f -f e r e n t s t a g e s i n a r e a d i n g , and w i t h even more i n f o r m a t i o n on g t h e poem p r o v i d e d , e t c . ; u s i n g s t u d e n t s sampled from d i f f e r e n t age l e v e l s ; u s i n g s t u d e n t s sampled from an e x c l u s i v e l y r u r a l , o r some o t h e r , a r e a ; u s i n g s t u d e n t s sampled from o t h e r C anadian r e g i o n s o r s u b - r e g i o n s ; and u s i n g New Z e a l a n d s t u d e n t s w i t h t h e same poems as i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . The l a t t e r r e p l i c a t i o n would be v a l u a b l e i n b a l a n c i n g t h e d e s i g n . I t might g i v e an i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i v e p a r t s p l a y e d by t h e s t u d e n t s ( i n c l u d i n g t h e i r s c h o o l backgrounds) and poems i n response p a t t e r n s . I t would f i l l o ut t h e s t u d y a l o n g o t h e l i n e s v a l u e d by E a r l y , by Warner and B e r g , and by Purves and Beach (see above, p. 17). A n o t h e r n e a r - r e p l i c a t i o n might e x p l o r e t h e Canadian-S t u d i e s i d e a by r e p l a c i n g t h e Denied Knowledge c o n d i t i o n w i t h one i n which s t u d e n t s a r e p r o v i d e d w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n l i k e t h a t g i v e n when l i t e r a t u r e i s t a u g h t as p a r t o f a s o c i a l s t u d i e s o r h i s t o r y c o u r s e . Many o t h e r " r e p l i c a t i o n s , " s u b s t i t u t i n g s t u d e n t s and/or poems, a r e p o s s i b l e . A USA/Canadian compari-son i s j u s t one example. L o n g i t u d i n a l S t u d i e s S t u d i e s c o u l d be made of Canadian s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e s t o C a n a d i a n l i t e r a t u r e o v e r t i m e . These might i n c l u d e , e s p e c i -170 a l l y , s t u d i e s o f t h e s t u d e n t s ' own hook s e l e c t i o n s . Case S t u d i e s There c o u l d he s t u d i e s o f i n d i v i d u a l r e a d i n g e x p e r i -ences w i t h Canadian l i t e r a t u r e . Those s t u d i e s might employ l e s s s e l e c t i v e m e t h o d o l o g i e s t h a n e x t a n t s t u d i e s . The S t r e n g t h o f T r a n s f e r To i n v e s t i g a t e t h e i s s u e r a i s e d under R e s u l t s (see above, p. 14-9)» s t u d e n t s might be c a l l e d upon t o d e s c r i b e a s e t t i n g remembered from a poem. Q u a l i f i e d p e o p l e from Canada and New Z e a l a n d might t h e n be asked t o comment upon t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of t h e d e s c r i p t i o n . ( F o r a n o t h e r method by which t o probe t h e ways i n which t h e Canadian l a b e l s a f f e c t r e s p onse see below, p. 173.) A Typ o l o g y o f L i t e r a r y Works Teachers might use t h e s t u d y poems i n c l a s s and com-pare t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h t h e s t u d y f i n d i n g s . A s m a l l a n t h o l o g y o f t h e p a i r e d poems w i t h a summary o f t h e f i n d i n g s might b e s t s e r v e t h i s end. M e t h o d o l o g i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e s There a r e o t h e r methods by which t o approach q u e s t i o n s l i k e t h o s e asked i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . Some a l t e r n a t i v e s have a l r e a d y been s u g g e s t e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r ; t h r e e more de s e r v e mention. 171 Tape R e c o r d i n g s The tape r e c o r d i n g o f s t u d e n t d i s c u s s i o n s i n r e s p o n s e t o p o e t r y s h o u l d he u n d e r t a k e n , f u r t h e r i n g t h e work o f Barnes and t h e e x t r e m e l y p r o m i s i n g p i l o t work f o r t h i s s t u d y . I p r e s e n t one example from the l a t t e r . The (grade 12) s t u d e n t s a r e f r e e l y d i s c u s s i n g " H i l l C o untry": A I can't s t a n d t h a t t y p e o f p o e t r y . B I r e a l l y l i k e d . . . C S o r t o f jagged and . . . uh . . . B That's what i t was supposed t o be I t h i n k . I t was supposed t o be a jagged poem. That ' s what the image o f t h e h i l l c o u n t r y i s ; something t h a t ' s jagged and . . . A W e l l t o me t h a t ' s not what h i l l c o u n t r y i s . D i d you see h i l l c o u n t r y ? D I saw . . . uh . . . I c o u l d n ' t see h i l l s . I can't see sunbaked c l a y on t o p o f a h i l l . E W e l l I can see h i l l s o f sunbaked c l a y but I c . . . . T h i s i s n ' t what h i l l c o u n t r y i s . D Not h i l l s o f . . . h i l l s o f sunbaked c l a y t h a t have y e l l o w broom blo o m i n g . I f you've got h i l l s of sunbaked c l a y t h e r e ' s not much on them. They're d r y , t h e y ' r e . . . windswept. ? Do you know what y e l l o w broom i s ? D Yeah, I know what broom i s . ? And you don't t h i n k i t goes w i t h . . . c l a y ? D Oh yeah, I t h i n k i t does but I don't t h i n k the whole t h i n g p u t s together.. .1 t h i n k p a r t o f i t i s where t h e r e i s more . . . B There's k i n d o f a p r o g r e s s i o n though, i t goes from where t h e , you g o t . . . 172 [ T r a n s c r i p t break: B moves t h r o u g h t e x t showing p r o g r e s s i o n . E i n t e r p o l a t e s , a t one p o i n t : I c o u l d n ' t I c o u l d n ' t see bees and f l o w e r s and sunbaked e a r t h . I j u s t c o u l d n ' t see i t . . . ] D Then i t s o r t o f b o t h e r e d m e — " w i n d strums over p l a i n , same d r y h i g h p l a i n " — I t h o u g h t , you know, p l a i n ? I want a mountain. Ha. E What happened t o t h e h i l l c o u n t r y ? D Yeah t h a t ' s p r e c i s e l y i t . What happened t o the h i l l c o u n t r y ? Because you don't g e t p l a i n s b e i n g i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e h i l l c o u n t r y . B You've g o t p l a t e a u s , you've got h i l l s and p l a -t e a u s . D That's more o f mountain though. But h i l l c o u n t r y ' s j u s t s o r t o f . . . h i l l s . . . you know . . . not mountains and not f l a t . ? Yeah r i g h t . ? Then t h a t b o t h e r e d me t o o — " s a l l o w f l a t , y e l l o w f l a t , w i l l o w f l a t . ' ! A Boy, you've g o t a r e a l s t e r e o t y p e d h i l l c o u n t r y . [ L a u g h t e r and agreement "yeah, yeah"] B Yeah I guess i f you do you j u s t g e t an image o f a h i l l c o u n t r y and what you . . . what h i l l c o u n t r y i s and t h e n i t s h a r d t o imagine t h a t d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s a r e happening. The commentary upon t r a n s f e r i s o b v i o u s and i m p o r t a n t . The p i l o t t r a n s c r i p t s r e l a t e t o many/other i s s u e s t o o . T h i s o r a l approach might be t h e one b e s t s u i t e d t o r e s e a r c h w i t h younger s t u d e n t s . I t a l s o o f f e r s a means by which t o probe t h e e f f e c t s of t r a n s f e r on r e s p o n s e . And t h e r e would be v a l u e i n a compari-son between f r e e response o f t h e t y p e e l i c i t e d i n t h i s s t u d y and . 10 group d i s c u s s i o n . 173 Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l s The s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l has g e n e r a l p r o m i s e (where i t s f i n d i n g s can be s a f e l y i n t e r p r e t e d ) as a probe i n t o t h e a t t i t u d i n a l c r e v i c e s opened up by l i t e r a r y r e s p o n s e . I t appears h i g h l y s u i t e d t o p u r s u i n g t h e q u e s t i o n s d i s c o v e r e d under " S i g n i f i c a n t A d j e c t i v a l s . " P r o j e c t i v e Techniques P r o j e c t i v e t e c h n i q u e s p o s s e s s s p e c u l a t i v e freedom and mesh w e l l w i t h t h e c r e a t i v e a s p e c t s o f E n g l i s h L i t e r a t u r e s t u d i e s . T h i s may compensate f o r t h e i r a n a l y t i c a l l o o s e n e s s . C o n c l u d i n g Statement Almost i n e v i t a b l y w i t h a p i o n e e r i n g s t u d y , f u t u r e r e s e a r c h p o s s i b i l i t i e s b e g i n t o overwhelm t h a t w h i c h i s i n i t i a l l y d i s c o v e r e d . So i t s h o u l d be i n t h e p r e s e n t case. The f i n d i n g s a r e t e n t a t i v e , t h e y a r e b e g i n n i n g s , t h e y depend upon e x t e n s i v e f u t u r e r e s e a r c h f o r t h e i r v e r i f i c a t i o n and development. But we do now know enough t o r e p l a c e l o o s e l y h e l d assumptions w i t h c o n s i d e r e d q u e s t i o n s . We know, t o t a k e up Hansson's p o i n t , a l i t t l e b e t t e r where some o f our Canadian s t u d e n t s a r e . NOTES CHAPTER I ^ The p e r i o d i c a l s g i v i n g most a t t e n t i o n t o t h e q u e s t i o n have been The E n g l i s h Q u a r t e r l y ( [ C a n a d a ] : CCTE), and Monday M o r n i n g ( T o r o n t o : S a t u r d a y N i g h t P u b l i c a t i o n s ) . George Crawford, Barometer R i s i n g ( [ C a n a d a ] : CCTE 1973) ; and Sandra S t e w a r t , Course Countdown ( T o r o n t o : CANLIT, 1974) . Crawford a l s o notes o p p o s i t i o n t o i n c r e a s e d Canadian c o n t e n t , e.g. pp. 4-, 10, 35- A t h i r d major s u r v e y was con-d u c t e d by A. B. Hodgetts--What C u l t u r e ? What H e r i t a g e ? ( T o r o n t o : 0 I S E , 1968)—but, as a s t u d y o f " C i v i c E d u c a t i o n , " i t d i d not y i e l d much d a t a on l i t e r a t u r e t e a c h i n g o r c u r r i c u l a . 3 E.g. Crawford, pp. 8-9, 53; John F a r r e l l , "How To Be a Canadian and Teach E n g l i s h , " The E n g l i s h Q u a r t e r l y , 3» No. 3 (1970), p. 41; R o b i n Mathews, c i t e d by L. W i l s o n , "Home i s Where You Hang You r C h i l d h o o d ; A Case f o r Canadian L i t e r a t u r e , " A r b o s , 7, No. 1 (1970),. p. 20; and K.M. Snow, "Canadian L i t e r a t u r e i n the S c h o o l s , " B C E n g l i s h Teacher, 10, No. 1 (1969)1 p. 39. k E.g. M. L o c k h a r t , " L e t ' s E x p l o r e Canadian L i t e r a t u r e , " M a n i t o b a Teacher, 4-9, No. 6 (1971), p. 4-; J a c k M c C l e l l a n d , c i t e d by L. W i l s o n , p. 22; Desmond Pacey, "Comments on Clement Moisan," Focus on Canadian S t u d i e s , ed. Edward H. Humphreys ( T o r o n t o : 0 I S E , 1969), p. 82; C h a r l e s Rea, "Canadian L i t e r a t u r e : A C e n t e n n i a l P r o j e c t , " The B u l l e t i n ( O n t a r i o Secondary S c h o o l s ) , 46, No. 1 (1966), p. 93; and S o c i a l E d u c a t i o n , 35, No. 6 (1971)1 pp. 542-4. J E.g. Clement M o i s a n , "L'enseignement de l a l i t t e r a t u r e Canadienne," Humphreys, pp;. 69-8O; and Rea, p. 94. L o u i s Dudek and I r v i n g L a y t o n , " I n t r o d u c t o r y Note," Canadian Poems: 1850-1952, ed. Dudek and L a y t o n ( T o r o n t o : C o n t a c t P r e s s , 1952), p. 13; J . F a r r e l l , p. 4-3; and J . M. Gray, " W r i t e r s We Need i n Canada," The E n g l i s h Q u a r t e r l y . 2, No. 2 (1969), pp. 45-6; L o c k h a r t , p. 4. 7 ' F o r t h e f i r s t p a r t o f t h i s s e n t e n c e , see "Canadian L i t e r a t u r e : The Nece s s a r y R e v o l u t i o n , " TS, London, Ont.: L a u r i e r H i g h S c h o o l (1972): "We t e a c h i t because i t i s u s , i t i s o u r s , i t i s t h e r e , i t i s e x c e l l e n t . " 8 Cf. H o d g e t t s , p. 119; and B r i t a M i c k l e b u r g h , " T h i s C l a s s Probed Our L i t e r a t u r e A l l Through t h e Year,".Monday M o r n i n g . 6, No. 2 (1971), P. 17. ^ E.g. George Bowering, "What E l e m e n t a r y and Secondary S c h o o l E n g l i s h S h o u l d Be About," Update. 15, No. 1 (197^), p.2; C r a w f o r d , pp. 39, 54; A l i c e H a l e , " T e a c h i n g C a n a d i a n L i t e r a t u r e — T h e S h o r t S t o r y , " E d u c a t i o n Nova S c o t i a . 4, No. 6 (1973), PP. 1-2; M a u r i c e L e b e l , "Approaches t o Canadian L i t e r a t u r e , " The E n g l i s h Q u a r t e r l y . 4, No. 4 (1971), PP- 6&-7O; and George Tomkins, " N a t i o n a l C o n s c i o u s n e s s , t h e C u r r i c u l u m and Canadian S t u d i e s , " The J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Thought. 7, No. 1 (1973) P. 19. a9; George Woodcock, c i t e d by Tomkins, p. 6; see a l s o S h e i l a E g o f f , The R e p u b l i c o f C h i l d h o o d ( 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 , 1967), p. 261; and Tomkins, pp. 6-7. 176 1 1 Rea, p. 94. 1 2 Gray, p. 46. Hugh Loughran, c i t e d by C r a w f o r d , p. 60. Ramsay Cook, "The Uses o f L i t e r a t u r e i n C u l t u r a l H i s t o r y , " The E n g l i s h Q u a r t e r l y . 4-, No. 3 (1971)» P- 11. Dudek and L a y t o n , p. 17. 1 6 Mathews, "Canadian L i t e r a t u r e : The Nece s s a r y R e v o l u -t i o n , " p. 7; and see Rea, p. 94. 1 7 See H o d g e t t s , p. 74. 1 Pi Secondary S c h o o l C u r r i c u l u m M a t e r i a l , Grade 12, P r o v i n c e o f New Bruns w i c k ; and Rea, p. 93• 19 7 S t e v e B a i l e y , "Canadian L i t e r a t u r e i n an I n t e r d i s c i -p l i n a r y S e t t i n g : Canadian S t u d i e s a t McPherson P a r k , " The  W i n t e r J o u r n a l (BCETA(), 15, No. 1 (1975), p. 13; Pacey, "Comments on Clement Moisan,",p. 81; M i c k l e b u r g h , "We Teach E n g l i s h L i k e a F o r e i g n Language." Monday M o r n i n g , 2, No. 1 (1967)1 p. 23; and c f . Rea, PP. 93-4. 20 H a l e , " T e a c h i n g Canadian L i t e r a t u r e — I t Can Be Fun," L i g h t h o u s e L e a r n i n g P r o j e c t ( H a l i f a x , Nova S c o t i a : A t l a n t i c I n s t i t u t e o f E d u c a t i o n ) , p. 1; and see Gray, p. 51-21 Cf. Dudek and L a y t o n , p. 12; Dorothy L i v e s a y , "On Te a c h i n g Canadian L i t e r a t u r e , " The W i n t e r J o u r n a l (BCETA), 15, No. 1 (1975)> p. 7; and L i v e s a y "On T e a c h i n g Our Own: A H o r i -z o n t a l View," The E n g l i s h Q u a r t e r l y . 4, No. 4 (1971)» p. 76; and J . F a r r e l l , p. 43. See a l s o p. 13 below. Cf. L i v e s a y , "On T e a c h i n g Our Own,"p. 76. 2 3 C r a w f o r d , p. 43. 177 *'"r C r a w f o r d acknowledges weaknesses i n h i s s u r v e y , e.g. p. 14. S t e w a r t draws h e a v i l y on C r a w f o r d . J Though sometimes w r i t e r s do acknowledge t h a t more needs t o be known, e.g. C r a w f o r d , p. 53; and L i v e s a y , " On T e a c h i n g Our Own," p. 77. Perhaps t h e s t u d y coming c l o s e s t t o exa m i n i n g assumptions i s t h a t u n d e r t a k e n by D a r l e n e H a r r i s , "Canadapoems," TS, B r i t i s h Columbia (1974): Because I b e l i e v e a d u l t s make t o o many d e c i s i o n s f o r c h i l d r e n , and because I make no p r e t e n s e t o t h i n k o r speak as a c h i l d ; o v e r 200 e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s t u d e n t s , from grades 4 t o 7» i n 4 l o c a -t i o n s i n No r t h Vancouver, were asked t o v o l u n t a r i l y a s s i s t i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e s e poems. [ I n t r o d u c t i o n ] However, t h e s t u d y l a c k s o b j e c t i v i t y . There a r e few e x p e r i -m e n t a l c o n t r o l s and H a r r i s i s committed t o a p a r t i c u l a r cause: T h i s B o o k l e t , t h e n , o f f e r s a s m a l l s a m p l i n g of t h e q u a l i t y and v a r i e t y o f Canadian poems t h a t t e a c h e r s can b r i n g t o t h e i r s t u d e n t s t o encourage a f e e l i n g o f p r i d e i n and a sense o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h p o e t r y w r i t t e n by and f o r Canadians. [ P r e f a c e ] 2 6 The A l b e r t a P r o v i n c i a l C u r r i c u l u m Guide (Modules, Grade X or X I , 7, C a n a d i a n P o e t r y ) does make t h e p o i n t r e c u l t u r e s : I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e t h e Canadian c u l t u r e as something t h a t i s d i s t i n c t i v e because c u l t u r a l backgrounds d i f f e r from r e g i o n t o r e g i o n . N o t i c e a l s o Tomkins, p. 7s U n i t y i s n a t i o n a l i n r e f e r e n c e , i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r com p a r a t i v e i n • p e r s p e c t i v e and r o o t e d i n a p o l i t i c a l f e e l i n g . I d e n t i t y i s a c u l t u r a l and i m a g i n a t i v e c o n c e p t , l o c a l and r e g i o n a l i n n a t u r e . I n F r y e ' s words, "The t e n s i o n between t h i s p o l i t i c a l sense o f u n i t y and the i m a g i n a t i v e sense o f l o c a l i t y i s t h e essence o f whatever t h e word 'Canadian' means." 178 ^ C r a w f o r d , p. 26 . See a l s o Andrews, "Author B i o g r a p h y and P o e t r y Study," Res Teach E n g l . 4 , No. 1 (1970), pp. 37-8 . 2 Pi Cf. Gunnar Hansson, "Some Types o f Research on Response t o L i t e r a t u r e . " Res Teach E n g l . 7. No. 2 (1973)» p. 263; A l b e r t Lee Lemen, "A Comparison o f V a r i o u s P r e s e n t a t i o n s i n S e c u r i n g A p p r o p r i a t e S t u d e n t Responses t o B i o g r a p h i c a l L i t e r a t u r e , " D i s s . C a l i f o r n i a ( B e r k . ) 1952, pp. 2-3; and James R. S q u i r e , "The Responses o f A d o l e s c e n t s t o L i t e r a t u r e I n v o l v i n g S e l e c t e d E x p e r i e n c e s o f P e r s o n a l Development," D i s s . C a l i f o r n i a ( B e r k . ) 1956, p. 2. The impetus i n t h i s work i s coming l a r g e l y from the USA. The work can be compared w i t h , f o r example, t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o r e a d i n g p r e f e r e n c e s e a r l i e r i n t h i s c e n t u r y . See Leo n a r d W. J o l l , "Development o f Taste.in. L i t e r a t u r e , I I I : D e v e l o p i n g T a s t e i n L i t e r a t u r e i n the J u n i o r H i g h S c h o o l . " E l e m e n t a r y  E n g l i s h . 4 0 , No. 2 (1963) , p. I 8 3 ; and S q u i r e , " E n g l i s h L i t e r a -t u r e , " E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , ed. Robert L. E b e l , 4 t h ed. (London: M a c m i l l a n , 1969), p. 467. 29 y Douglas B a r n e s , P e t e r C h u r l e y and C h r i s t o p h e r Thompson, "Group T a l k and L i t e r a r y Response," E n g l i s h i n E d u c a t i o n . 5, No. 3 (1971), PP. 63-76. 30 " r p ^ Responses o f A d o l e s c e n t s t o L i t e r a t u r e . " 3 1 A l a n C. Purves w i t h V i c t o r i a R i p p e r e , Elements o f  W r i t i n g About a L i t e r a r y Work (Champaign, I I I . : NCTE, 1968); and S q u i r e , "The Responses o f A d o l e s c e n t s t o L i t e r a t u r e . " . F o l l o w i n g t h e i r l e a d a r e , e.g. Hansson, pp. 260-84; P u r v e s , A r t h u r W. Foshay and Hansson, L i t e r a t u r e E d u c a t i o n i n Ten C o u n t r i e s 179 (New York: John W i l e y and. Sons, 1973); N a t i o n a l Assessment o f E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r e s s , H i g h l i g h t s o f the F i r s t N a t i o n a l Assessment  of L i t e r a t u r e ' ( [ U S A ] : E d u c a t i o n Commission o f t h e S t a t e s , 1972); N a t i o n a l Assessment o f E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r e s s , Responding t o  L i t e r a t u r e : Theme 2 , L i t e r a t u r e (Denver, C o l . : N a t i o n a l Assessment o f E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r e s s , 1973); a n d many d o c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e s e m p l o y i n g t h e P u r v e s - R i p p e r e c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s scheme i n t h e i r d i s s e r t a t i o n s . ^ 2 E.g. Nathan S. B l o u n t , "Research on T e a c h i n g L i t e r a t u r e , Language and Com p o s i t i o n , " Second Handbook o f Re s e a r c h on  T e a c h i n g , ed. Robert M.W. T r a v e r s ( C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1973) , pp. 1072-97; C h a r l e s R. Cooper, "Measuring 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 Review o f A t t e m p t s , " Res Teach E n g l . 5, No. 1 (1971), pp. 5-23; Henry C. M e c k e l , "Research on T e a c h i n g Compo-s i t i o n and L i t e r a t u r e , " Handbook o f Research on T e a c h i n g , ed. N.L. Gage ( C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , I 9 6 3 ), pp. 966-1066; and Purves and R i c h a r d Beach, L i t e r a t u r e and t h e Reader (Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1972). 33 Barnes e t a l . , pp. 70, 74-6; Beach, "The L i t e r a r y Response P r o c e s s o f C o l l e g e S t u d e n t s , " , E n g l i s h Record. 22 (Summer 1973). PP. 98-116; H.J. M u l l e r , The Uses o f E n g l i s h (New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, I 9 6 7 ) , pp. 49 , 86; P u r v e s , "An E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e V a r i e t i e s o f C r i t i c i s m . " . C o l l e g e  C o m p o s i t i o n and Communication, 27 (May 1966), p. 99; P u r v e s , " L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m and E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement," A Guide t o  E v a l u a t i o n f o r Responding, ed. C h a r l e s R. Cooper and Purves ( L e x i n g t o n , Mass.: G i n n , 1973), p. 78; Purves and Beach, pp. 150-1; 180 S c h o o l and C o l l e g e Conference on E n g l i s h , A p r i l 194-2, "Report of t h e L i t e r a t u r e Committee," i n I s s u e s Problems and Approaches i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f . E n g l i s h , ed. G.W. Stone J r . (New York: H o l t R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1963)» pp. 58-61; and James R. W i l s o n , Responses o f C o l l e g e Freshmen 1 t o Three Novels (Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1966), p. 40.. ^ M u l l e r , p. 49. 3-5 Barnes e t a l . , p. 76, e t passim. ^ P u r v e s , " L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m and E d u c a t i o n a l Measure-ment," p. 75. ^ N o t i c e Hansson, p. 276: I f we do not t h i n k o f " b e t t e r " as r i g h t o r wrong, but as e x p e c t e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and r e s p o n s e s , we can always d e f i n e what t h e e x p e c t e d r e s p o n s e i s , and why we e x p e c t i t . Our e x p e c t a t i o n s w i l l v a r y w i t h d i f f e r e n t t e a c h i n g g o a l s and d i f f e r e n t t e a c h i n g s i t u a t i o n s , but i f we know what we a r e a i m i n g a t , we can always d e f i n e and defend them." See a l s o : M e c k e l , "Research on T e a c h i n g C o m p o s i t i o n and L i t e r a t u r e , " p. 999; Purves and Beach, p. 37; and J.W. R i n g , "A Study o f t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i v e P r o c e s s e s Employed by S e l e c t e d A d o l e s c e n t Readers o f Three S h o r t S t o r i e s , " D i s s . Ohio I968, p. 6. See Purves e t a l . , p. 315; and P u r v e s , " I n d o c t r i n a t i o n i n L i t e r a t u r e , " E J , 63, No. 5 (1974), p. 70. 39 See, r e s t u d e n t m o t i v a t i o n t o c o n t i n u e r e a d i n g a f t e r t h e s c h o o l y e a r s , Norma B. Kahn, "A P r o p o s a l f o r M o t i v a t i n g More St u d e n t s t o L i f e t i m e Reading o f L i t e r a t u r e , " E J , 63, No. 2 (1974), p. 34; and D. H. R u s s e l l , "Some Research on t h e Impact o f Reading," E J , 47, No. 7 (1955), p. 406. 181 40 See Dwight L. B u r t o n , "The IEA Study: Two Reviews (The F i r s t Review)," Res Teach E n g l . 8, No. 1 (1974), p. 18; and Purves e t a l . , p. 31^' 41 M a r g a r e t E a r l y , " L i t e r a t u r e and the Development o f Reading S k i l l s , " ED 019 209 (1968), p. 8. 42 B e r n i c e E. L e a r y , "Reading Problems i n L i t e r a t u r e , " Reading i n the H i g h S c h o o l and C o l l e g e , ed. N. B. Henry ( C h i c a g o : N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the Study o f E d u c a t i o n , 1948), p. 139. ^ P u r v e s , "IEA L i t e r a t u r e : F i n a l Report ( R e v i s e d ) , " TS (June 1971), Chap. 7, p. 22; though E. B. B r i d g e c a s t s doubt on t h i s c o n c l u s i o n : " U s i n g C h i l d r e n ' s C h o i c e s o f and R e a c t i o n s t o P o e t r y as D e t e r m i n a n t s i n E n r i c h i n g L i t e r a r y E x p e r i e n c e i n the M i d d l e Grades," D i s s . Temple 1966, pp. 62, 73. See a l s o George W. N o r v e l l , The Reading I n t e r e s t s o f Young  Peop l e ( M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973), P. 67, c i t i n g Terman, Dunn, J o r d a n and o t h e r s ; R i c h a r d J . S m i t h and Thomas Burns, "The E f f e c t s o f D i f f e r e n t I n s t r u c t i o n a l P r a c t i c e s on S t u d e n t Enjoyment and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a B a l l a d , " J o u r n a l o f  Reading. 13, No. 5 (1970), p. 354; and Purves and Beach, pp. 50, 161. ^ E.g. Hans P. Guth, E n g l i s h f o r a New G e n e r a t i o n (New York: McGraw H i l l , 1973), P. 22; Purves e t a l . , pp. 44, 46; M u l l e r , pp. 89, 93; P u r v e s , " L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m and E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement," p. 71; Purves and Beach p. 101; and S c h o o l and C o l l e g e Conference on E n g l i s h , p. 51- Of. Pacey, "Comments on Clement Moisan," p. 81; and Pacey, "A P l e a f o r the Study o f Our Own L i t e r a t u r e , " C u r r i c u l u m B u l l e t i n ( M a n i t o b a ) , 3 (May 1969), p.3. 182 J See Purves and Beach, pp. 105-6. 46 See Purves e t a l . , pp. 25, 314-5, e t passim; P u r v e s , " I n d o c t r i n a t i o n i n L i t e r a t u r e , " E J , 63, No. 5 (1974), p. 70, e t passim; and Purves and Beach, pp. 24 - 5 , 27, I 7 7 - 8 . Such an i n f l u e n c e i s not n e c e s s a r i l y s t r o n g o r easy t o measure. See S q u i r e , "What Does Research i n Reading R e v e a l About A t t i t u d e s Towards Reading?" E J , 58 , No. 4 ( I 9 6 9 ) , p. 525. 47 ' Purves e t a l . , pp. 314-5, e t passim; and P u r v e s , " I n d o c t r i n a t i o n i n L i t e r a t u r e , " p. 70, e t passim. 4R P h y l l i s T e z e r , "The C u l t u r e Gap," ED 037 453 (1969), passim; and F.S. Y o u s e f , " C r o s s - c u l t u r a l T e s t i n g : An A s p e c t o f the R e s i s t a n c e R e a c t i o n , " Language L e a r n i n g . 18 (Dec. I 9 6 8 ) , p. 227, e t passim. ^ L.M. R o s e n b l a t t , "The A c i d T e s t f o r L i t e r a t u r e T e a c h i n g , " E J , 45, No. 1 (1956), p. 69. •5° Barnes e t a l . , p. 66; John D i x o n , Growth Through E n g l i s h ( Reading: NATE, 1967), p. 59; W a l t e r Loban, " A d o l e s c e n t s o f V a r y i n g S e n s i t i v i t y and T h e i r Responses t o L i t e r a t u r e I n t e n d e d t o Evoke Sympathy," D i s s . M i n n e s o t a 1949, p. 250; P u r v e s , "IEA L i t e r a t u r e , " p. 5; R u s s e l l , " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Through L i t e r a t u r e , " C h i l d h o o d E d u c a t i o n . 25, No. 9 (1949) , p. 400; and S q u i r e , "The Responses o f A d o l e s c e n t s t o L i t e r a t u r e , " p. 4 5 . See a l s o P u rves and Beach, pp. 2 , I63. R u s s e l l , " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Through L i t e r a t u r e , " p. 400. 52 F e h l L. S h i r l e y , " I n f l u e n c e o f Reading on Concepts, A t t i t u d e s and B e h a v i o u r , " J o u r n a l o f Reading, 12, No. 5 (,1969), pp. 369-72. See a l s o Leo Auerbach, "The I n t e r a c t i o n 183 Between S o c i a l A t t i t u d e and Response t o Three S h o r t S t o r i e s , " D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 35, No. 2 (1974), p. 711A (New Y o r k ) ; M arlene Ann Birkman, " C h i l d r e n ' s Responses t o F r e e V e r s e : An I n q u i r y , " D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s . 35, No. 1 (1973)i p. 163A ( P u r d u e ) ; Cooper, "Research Roundup: L i t e r a t u r e , H u m a n i t i e s , Media," E J , 62, No. 7 (1973), pp. 1057-8, c i t i n g D a v i s ; Purves and Beach, pp. 18-19, 96; Douglas A l e x a n d e r S t o u t , "The Responses o f C o l l e g e Freshmen t o C h a r a c t e r s i n Four S h o r t S t o r i e s , " D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s . 25, No. 3 (1964), p. 1794 ( C a l i f o r n i a [ B e r k . ] ) . B owering, p. 2. v p. 52. See a l s o p. 3 above; L i v e s a y , "On T e a c h i n g Canadian L i t e r a t u r e , " p. 7; and B i l l B i s s e t t , "On What Secondary E n g l i s h S h o u l d be About," Update (BCETA), 15, No. 5 (1974), p. 2: f i r s t what i wud say cud b dun i s f o r t h e t e e c h r s t o o r d r buks a c t u a l l y p r i n t i d i n b.c. by l i v i n g b.c. a u t h o r s f o r t h e r c l a s s e s t h s wud make i t p o s s i b u l f o r p e o p u l i n c l a s s e s ( t h word ' s t u d e n t ' i s k n i d u v dumb) t o r e e d nd d i s c u s s p o e t r y as i t s b e i n g w r i t t e n t o d a y nd w i t h i n an environment t h e y a r a l r e d y f a m i l i a r w i t h o r con c e r n nd u n d r s t a n d i n g cud b a c h i e v d mor r e d i l y But c f . E g o f f , p. 12: Some, however, f e e l an o b l i g a t i o n t o purchase e v e r y Canadian n o v e l , e s p e c i a l l y i f i t has an i d e n t i f i a b l e l o c a l e , t h e t h e o r y b e i n g t h a t , even i f a s t o r y i s not w e l l w r i t t e n , a c h i l d might l e a r n , f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t Vancouver i s on t h e west c o a s t o f Canada. Cf. Purves and Beach, p. 163; Laurence L e s t e r S h e r r i l l , "The A f f e c t i v e Responses o f E t h n i c M i n o r i t y Readers t o I n d i -genous Ghetto L i t e r a t u r e : A Measurement," D i s s e r t a t i o n 184 A b s t r a c t s , 3 4 , No. 1 (1973), pp. 348A-9A, ( W i s c o n s i n ) ; D o nald N i c h o l a s - M e n c h i s e , " R a c i a l B i a s as a Dete r m i n a n t o f L i t e r a r y -P r e f e r e n c e and t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p o f S e l e c t e d V a r i a b l e s t o P a t t e r n s o f P r e f e r e n c e and R e j e c t i o n o f L i t e r a r y Works Whose A u t h o r ' s Race i s Known," D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 3 3 , No. 6 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , p. 2619A ( C o n n e c t i c u t ) ; Mary Ann Woodyard, "The E f f e c t s o f T e a c h i n g B l a c k L i t e r a t u r e t o a Ninth-Grade C l a s s i n a Negro H i g h S c h o o l i n P i c a y u n e , M i s s i s s i p p i , " D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 3 2 , No. 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , P. 317A ( T e n n e s s e e ) . D. W. H a r d i n g , "Response t o L i t e r a t u r e : The Report o f the Study Group," A Common Purp o s e , ed. S q u i r e (Champaign, 1 1 1 . : NCTE, 1 9 6 5 ) , p. 1 2 . 57 E l s a G e l p i , "The Enjoyment o f L i t e r a t u r e / ' ERIC A b s t r a c t s 032 515 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; P u r v e s e t a l . , p. 24; Purves and Beach, p. 188, r e p o r t i n g A l p e r t ; H a r o l d J . V i n e , " A f f e c t i v e U n d e r s t a n d i n g and the Reading o f P o e t r y , " D i s s . S y r a c u s e 1 9 7 0 , pp. 3 4 - 5 -E. g. Loban, c i t i n g White, p. 2 0 1 ; and Purves and Beach, p. 7 3 . 59 E.g. D i x o n , p. 5 9 ; R o s e n b l a t t , "The A c i d T e s t f o r L i t e r a t u r e Teaching," lp. 71 ; and C a r o l S e e f e l d t , "Toward A p p r e c i a t i o n , " E l e m e n t a r y E n g l i s h . 4 9 , No. 5 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , p. 7 9 0 . See a l s o Dudek and L a y t o n , p. 3 , n. 21 above; and D.R. G a l l o , " J o u r n a l Reading and S e l e c t e d Measures o f T e a c h i n g E f f e c t i v e n e s s , " Res Teach E n g l , 4 , No. 1 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , pp. 4 5 - 5 0 . M a r i e R a n k i n , C h i l d r e n ' s I n t e r e s t s i n L i b r a r y Books o f  F i c t i o n (New York: Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 4 4 ) , pp. 1 3 2 - 3 , 1 3 5 . See a l s o J.L. Evans "Two A s p e c t s o f L i t e r a r y 185 A p p r e c i a t i o n Among H i g h S c h o o l S t u d e n t s , Judgement o f P r o s e Q u a l i t y and E m o t i o n a l Response t o L i t e r a t u r e , and S e l e c t e d A s p e c t s o f T h e i r Reading I n t e r e s t s , " D i s s . M i n n e s o t a , 1 9 6 8 , p. 3 2 , c i t i n g H e i l m a n ( 1 9 5 6 ) ; Purves and Beach, p. 18; and B r i d g e , pp. 42, 6 3 . 62 Loban, pp. 2 5 0 , 2 5 1 ; Purves and Beach, pp. 1 8 , 28; R i n g , p. 2 3 ; and S q u i r e , The Responses o f A d o l e s c e n t s W h i l e  Reading F o u r S h o r t S t o r i e s . p. 5 6 . ^ P u r v e s , "IEA L i t e r a t u r e , " Chap. 1 , p. 9 ; Ch. 3 , p.5 . 64 P. 75s John C. Ger b e r , " E x p l o s i o n i n E n g l i s h , " The Shape o f E n g l i s h . (Champaign, 1 1 1 . : NCTE, 1 9 6 7 ) , p. 1 1 ; Purves and Beach, p. 1 6 3 ; and V i n e , pp. 3 4 - 5 -6^ D Barnes e t a l . , pp. 6 6 - 7 . 66 S h e r r i l l . See a l s o Menchise; Purves and Beach, pp. 1 0 5 - 6 ; and Woodyard. ^ N.S. Boze, " E t h n i c L i t e r a t u r e . " C l e a r i n g House. 4 4 , No. 9 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , p. 5 2 7 . 68 Cf. Hansson, pp. 2 7 3 - 4 . E.g. L a r r y Andrews, " A u t h o r B i o g r a p h y and P o e t r y Study: I I , " Res Teach E n g l . 6 , No. 2 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , p. 4 2 . N o t i c e a l s o t h e IEA f i n d i n g i n r e s p e c t o f ex-t r i n s i c i n f o r m a t i o n , Purves e t a l . , pp. 5 2 - 3 ! I n a d d i t i o n t o a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f knowledge o f o t h e r t e x t s , o f l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y and o t h e r c o n t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n , and o f c u l t u r a l i n f o r m a t i o n t o s p e c i f i c t e x t s p l a y s a p a r t i n a l l t h e c u r r i c u l a . The i n f o r m a t i o n s u r r o u n d i n g t e x t s seems n ot t o be meant t o be l e a r n e d m e r e l y f o r i t s own sake but f o r i t s u s e f u l n e s s i n t h e r e a d i n g and d i s c u s s i o n o f o t h e r t e x t s . The r e p o r t s from C h i l e , E n g l a n d , F i n l a n d , I t a l y , I r a n , New Z e a l a n d , and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a l l e x p r e s s concern about the 186 tendency f o r such i n f o r m a t i o n t o u s u r p t h e p l a c e o f r e a d i n g o f t e x t s . and Menchise. 6 9 7 See L.A. F a g g i a n i , "The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f A t t i t u d e t o Response i n t h e Reading o f a Poem by N i n t h Grade S t u d e n t s , " D i s s . New Yo r k 1971, passim; M a r g a r e t F r a n c e s L o r i m e r , "A Comparison o f Responses Made t o S e l e c t e d P i e c e s o f L i t e r a t u r e by H i g h S c o r e r s ^ n d Low S c o r e r s on t h e I n v e n t o r y o f B e l i e f s , " D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s . 2 0 , No. 4 (1959), p. 1268 ( M i c h i g a n ) ; Anne S e l l e y M c K i l l o p , "The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between t h e Reader's A t t i t u d e and C e r t a i n Types o f Reading Response," D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s . 11, No. 3 (1951) , pp. 5 9 0 - 1 ( C o l u m b i a ) ; M e c k e l , "Research on T e a c h i n g C o m p o s i t i o n and L i t e r a t u r e , " p. 997; Purves and Beach, pp. 17-20, e t passim; R u s s e l l , "Some Research on t h e Impact o f Reading," p. 4-04; and C h a r l e s T u r n e r Wethington, "A Study o f t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between A t t i t u d e Toward E n g l i s h and S e v e r a l S e l e c t e d V a r i a b l e s , " D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s . \li<:} 31, No. 4 (1970) p. 1637A-8A (1965), pp. 1 6 3 7 A - 8 A ( K e n t u c k y ) . 70 ' D a v i d K r e c h , R i c h a r d S. C r u t c h f i e l d and E g e r t o n L. B a l l a c h e y , I n d i v i d u a l i n S o c i e t y (New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1 9 6 2 ) , P. 139. 71 ' See above, pp. 10-11; and P u r v e s , "An E x a m i n a t i o n o f th e V a r i e t i e s o f C r i t i c i s m , " p. 94. 72 ' H. Wainer and W. B e r g , "The Dimensions o f De Maupassant,' A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 9 , No. 4 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , p. 4 9 0 . 73 Purves and Beach, p. I 6 3 . 187 74 A c c o r d i n g l y , i t p a r t l y answered the question Purves and Beach (p. 14-7) tag to another statement on e t h n i c l i t e r a -t u r e : "One wonders what form the research might take." See F a g g i a n i , pp. 10-11, and Cooper and Purves, p. 22. Of course such an approach to c u l t u r a l questions has i t s own l i m i t a t i o n s . Notice the IEA's q u a l i f i e d p o s i t i o n : The a t t i t u d e s and approaches are o f t e n those which shape the c u l t u r a l l i f e of a n a t i o n or group, and an attempt to measure those approaches gives one some idea of t h a t c u l t u r a l l i f e . The patterns of response d i s p l a y a tendency of how people t h i n k of what they read; they do not inform one of the l a r g e r "Weltanschauungen". Purves et a l . , pp. 15, 314. Cf. a l s o S h e i l a Egoff, pp. 3-4: A study of Canadian c h i l d r e n ' s books, t h e r e f o r e , can throw some l i g h t on the n a t i o n i t s e l f . I have i n no way made an e x p l i c i t study i n t h i s area, but the books whose l i t e r a r y q u a l i t i e s are here discussed r e v e a l more than content and s t y l e . They show what Canada and Canadians are l i k e , what values we r e s p e c t , how we look at ourselves today and a t our past. J u s t as A l i c e i n Wonderland t e l l s us much about V i c t o r i a n England, so c h i l d r e n ' s books i n Canada r e f l e c t many of the forces i n our own s o c i e t y ; i t i s a r e f l e c t i o n i n m i n i a t u r e , of course, but accurate and i n d i c a t i v e . 76 Notice M u l l e r , p. 80, re l i t e r a r y h e r i t a g e : t h i s h e r i t a g e " i s not a packet to be t r a n s m i t t e d i n e r t , " but i s a l i v e and f l u i d . "Each genera-t i o n takes from i t what i t needs and adds to i t i n i t s t u r n . " 77 Notice Purves, " E v a l u a t i o n of Learning i n L i t e r a t u r e , " Handbook on Formative and Summative E v a l u a t i o n of Student Learning, ed. Benjamin S. Bloom, J , Thomas Hastings and George F. Madaus (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. 706: 188 "In a s i g n i f i c a n t sense, works of a r t e x i s t as perceived, or as a co n s t a n t l y growing and developing body of perceptions (Squire, 1968, p. 23)." I t i s awareness of t h i s f a c t toward which many teachers would l e a d t h e i r students, and they would do so by askin g t h e i r students to consider t h e i r own responses and to seek the causes of those responses i n the work and i n themselves. See a l s o Mary H. Beaven, "Responses of Adolescents t o Feminine Character i n L i t e r a t u r e , " Res Teach E n g l . 6, No. 1 (1972), p. 63. 78 ' Burton, "Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h : The Troubled Dream," Res Teach E n g l , 7, No. 2 (1973), pp. 179, 164-5: The r e l a t i v e absence of experimental s t u d i e s i n recognized research, despite the prominence of the genre g e n e r a l l y , underscores the f a c t t h a t good experimental designs are simply harder to b u i l d than other types. The experimental s t u d y -u s u a l l y i n v o l v i n g the e f f e c t s of teaching methods, c u r r i c u l a r arrangements, or m a t e r i a l s — h a v e been dogged wi t h e s p e c i a l problems which may or may not be insurmountable i n research i n the teaching of E n g l i s h . See a l s o P h i l l i p E. Jacob, Changing Values i n College (New York: Harper and Row, 1957), pp. 130-7;- D. R. Krathwohl, B.S. Bloom, and B.B. Masia, Taxonomy of E d u c a t i o n a l Objectives (New York: David McKay, 1964), p. 16; Geoffrey P. Mason, "Some Problems i n E v a l u a t i n g E n g l i s h . " E v a l u a t i o n of E n g l i s h 10, ed. Mason (Vancouver: E d u c a t i o n a l Research I n s t i t u t e of BC, 1968), p. 103; and Purves and Beach, p. 762. 79 Hansson, p. 263. 80 Hansson, p. 263. 0-1 See J o l l , 184; and n o t i c e Purves, i n Cooper and Purves, P. 37: 189 " S t a r t where t h e y ar e ! " ' You have r e a d and he a r d t h a t i n j u n c t i o n many t i m e s . But . .. . where a r e they? 82 C a r o l T a l b e r t , " A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l Research Modes," Res  Teach E n g l . 7, No. 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , pp. 1 9 7 - 8 . See a l s o R i c h a r d M. B r a n d t , S t u d y i n g B e h a v i o r i n N a t u r a l S e t t i n g s (New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1972), p. v; and P e t e r S. Rpsenbaum, "The New Research," Res Teach E n g l . 7, No. 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , p. 153. Purves and Beach, p. 163. 84 Cooper, M e a s u r i n g Growth 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 (Newark, D e l . : I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading A s s o c i a t i o n , 1972), pp. 2 0 - 1 ; Purves and Beach, p. 163; and Eugene J . Webb, D.T. Campbell, R.D. Schwartz, and L. S e c h r e s t , U n o b t r u s i v e Measures ( C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y and Co., 1966), p a s s i m . ®5 p. 174, drawing upon Campbell and F i s k e ( 1 9 5 9 ) . 86 See Cooper, "Research Roundup: L i t e r a t u r e , H u m a n i t i e s , Media,". E J , 62, No. 7 (1973), p. 94; C r a w f o r d , pp. 14, 2 7 - 8 ; M a u r i c e Gibbons, " E v a l u a t i o n o f Achievement i n L i t e r a t u r e , " E v a l u a t i o n o f E n g l i s h 10". ed. Mason, p. 31; M i c h a e l F. Graves and Stephen M. K o z i o l J r . , "The 1973 Conference on Res e a r c h i n E n g l i s h E d u c a t i o n and Reading: Notes on t h e T r a i n i n g o f F u t u r e R e s e a r c h e r s , " Res Teach E n g l . 8, No. 2 (197^), PP. 272-3; D o r i s V. Gunderson, "Flaws i n Res e a r c h D e s i g n . " Res Teach E n g l . 1, No. 1 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , p. 8; M.G. H a c k e t t e t a l . , "Study o f Two S t r a t e g i e s i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f L i t e r a t u r e i n the Secondary S c h o o l , " S c h o o l Review. 76, No. 1 ( I 9 6 8 ) , p. 82; D. K a t z and E. S t o t l a n d , "A P r e l i m i n a r y Statement o f a Theory o f A t t i t u d e S t r u c t u r e and Change," Psychology: A Study of A Science, V o l . 3 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959), p. 173; Rosenbaum, p. 157; and Smith and Burns, "The E f f e c t s of D i f f e r e n t I n s t r u c t i o n a l . P r a c t i c e s , " P. 345. 87 ' Erwin R. Steinberg and G a r l i c A. Forehand, "Problems of T e s t i n g and Research Design i n Curriculum Study i n English,". Research Design and the Teaching of E n g l i s h , ed. R u s s e l l et a l . (Champaign, 111.: NCTE., 1964), p. 4-. CHAPTER I I Purves, "The Nature of Achievement i n L i t e r a t u r e , " pp. 65-70, p. 68. See a l s o Purves and Beach, p. 178. 2 Cf. Purves, "What i s Achievement i n L i t e r a t u r e . " ED 013 064 (1967), p. 1. 3 Purves et a l . , p. 36. ^ " E v a l u a t i o n of Learning i n L i t e r a t u r e , " p. 708. 5 Purves and Beach, pp. 180-1 . ^ Norman Holland,"Poems i n Persons: A Review and a Reply (The Reply).". Res Teach Engl. 8, No. 1 (1974), p. 13, c i t i n g David B l e i c h . 7 Meckel," "Research Designs Needed i n Studying the Teaching of Language and L i t e r a t u r e i n the Secondary School," Research Design and the Teaching of E n g l i s h , ed. R u s s e l l , p. 89. 8 Cooper, "Research Roundup,"- p. 1056. 9 y See Marion S c r i b n e r , "The Responses of Students, Teachers and C r i t i c s to Selected Poetry," D i s s . C a l i f o r n i a (Berk.) i960, pp. 21-2. 191 1 0 Gibbons, " E v a l u a t i o n o f Achievement i n L i t e r a t u r e , " , p. 7.' 1 1 The q u o t a t i o n i s from Edmund J . F a r r e l l , ' D e c i d i n g t h e  F u t u r e (Urbana', Iir;.» NCTE, 1971). p. 156. See a l s o Barnes e t a l , , p; 67; H. L. Hoffman, "The Responses o f H i g h S c h o o l S e n i o r s t o N i n e t e e n t h Century E n g l i s h L y r i c P o e t r y , " D i s s . Nebraska 1971» PP'» 10-12; H o l l a n d , "Poems i n P e r s o n s ; A Review and a R e p l y (The Reply)"," p. 14-; Purves,' " 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 , " , pp. 703, 706, r e p o r t i n g t h e Dartmouth Seminar; P u r v e s , "Poems i n P e r s o n s t A Review and a R e p l y (The Review) , " Res Teach E n g l . 8, No. 1 (1974), pp. 10-11; Purves and Beach, pp. 35-6; Rosenblatt", "The A c i d T e s t f o r L i t e r a t u r e T e a c h i n g , " p. 72; R o s e n b l a t t , "The Poem as Event," C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 26, No. 2 (1964), pp. 123-8; R o s e n b l a t t , L i t e r a t u r e As E x p l o r a t i o n (New York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1938), passim; and Raymond J . W i l s o n , " T r a n s a c t i o n a l A n a l y s i s and L i t e r a t u r e , " D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s . 34, No. 12 (1974), p. 7703A ( N e b r a s k a ) . 12 Purves e t a l . , p. 36. See a l s o P u r v e s , " L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m and E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement," p. 76. N o r v e l l , What Boys and G i r l s L i k e t o Read ( M o r r i s t o n , NJ: S i l v e r B u r d e t t , 1958), p. 3. 14 P u r v e s , " D e s i g n i n g t h e Board's New L i t e r a t u r e A c h i e v e -ment T e s t , " ED 022748; (I968), p. 2. 1^  E l e a n o r L, N o r r i s and John E. Bowes, eds., N a t i o n a l  Assessment o f E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r e s s (Ann A r b o r : N a t i o n a l Assessment o f E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r e s s , 1970), pp. 2, 11. See a l s o below, n. 65. 192 - i /r B u r t o n , "The IEA Study: Two Reviews (The F i r s t R eview)," p. 16. ~^~7 P u r v e s , "The Nature o f Achievement i n L i t e r a t u r e : Some Notes on E v a l u a t i o n and A c c o u n t a b i l i t y , " A Guide t o E v a l u a t i o n , ed. Cooper and P u r v e s , p. 66; Purves e t a l . , pp. 4-0-4; and S e e f e l d t , p. 792. 18 Forehand, "Problems o f M e a s u r i n g Response t o L i t e r a -t u r e , " C l e a r i n g House, 40, No. 6 (1966), p. 370. 1 9 See Forehand, p. 369. 20 Forehand, p. 3 6 9 S e e a l s o S q u i r e , "What Does Re s e a r c h i n Reading R e v e a l About A t t i t u d e s Towards Reading?" p. 528. 21 Cooper, " 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 , " p. 18. 22 Forehand, p. 369. See a l s o Andrews, "Response t o L i t e r a t u r e : I n T e n n i s t h e S e r v i c e i s C r u c i a l , " E J , 63, No. 2 (1974), p. 46. 2 "3 J N o t i c e Cooper, M e a s u r i n g Growth 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 . pp. 6-7 and p. 17: A measure t h a t would s a t i s f y a l l t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f v a l i d i t y can p r o b a b l y n e v e r be c o n s t r u c t e d . The t a s k o f t h e t e s t - m a k e r i s t o put t o g e t h e r t h e most c o n v i n c i n g l y v a l i d t e s t he can manage. We can do much b e t t e r t h a n we have. and P u r v e s , "The Nature o f Achievement i n L i t e r a t u r e , " p. 69: The i m p o r t a n t g o a l s o f e d u c a t i o n i n l i t e r a t u r e a r e t h o s e about which t h e r e i s no c e r t a i n t y : t h e engagement of a s t u d e n t , h i s t a s t e , h i s judgment, h i s p r i v a t e r e s p o n s e , h i s c a p a c i t y f o r r e s p o n s e , and h i s a t t i t u d e s towards l i t e r a -t u r e and t h e l i t e r a r y e x p e r i e n c e . 24 S t a b i l i t y o f i n i t i a l r esponse o v e r time cannot be measured u s i n g t h e same s t u d e n t s . A l s o t h e f i r s t e x p e r i m e n t a l 193 session i n the present study would have destroyed the conditions necessary for r e p l i c a t i o n . 2^  ^ Squire, "Preface," Purves with Rippere, p. v. See also Andrews, "Response to L i t e r a t u r e , " p. 46; Beach, "The L i t e r a r y Response Process," pp. 78-9; Hansson, pp. 264-8; Purves, " L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m , Testing and the English Teacher," College  English. 28, No. 4 ( I 9 6 7 ) , p. 313; Purves, "Evaluation of Learning i n Literature," p. 703; and Purves and Beach, p. 66. 26 On spoken cf. written responses see Joseph J. Foley, "A Comparison of Oral and Written Responses i n a Literature Examination," Di s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 32, No. 2 (1971), pp. 1 9 7 7 A - 8 A (Boston College). 2 7 See above, pp. 10-11, 15-16. For the effects of teaching, generally, see Purves arid Beach, pp. 148, 150-2, 162, 194-5; J.R. Wilson, p. 4 l ; Scott Lee Shablak, "The E f f e c t s of Different Types of Guide Materials and Manner of Presentation on Ninth Graders* C u r i o s i t y Toward and Response to Selected Short Stories," D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 34, No. 10 (1974), p. 6524A (Syracuse); and Squire, "English L i t e r a t u r e , " pp. 466-7. 28 On the l a s t point see Hansson, pp. 263-4; Purves, "Evaluation of Learning i n Lit erature," p. 709; Purves, " L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m and Educational Measurement," p. 75; Purves, "The Nature of Achievement i n Literature," p. 68; National Assessment of Educational Progress, Responding to Literature; Theme 2, Literature, p. x i i i . 2 9 Cf. Purves and Beach, pp. 16-17; and Eugene R. Smith 194 Ralph Tyler, and Evaluation Sta f f , Appraising and Recording Student Progress (New York: Harper, 1942), pp. 278-9. 30 J See* Cooper, "Measuring Appreciation of Li t e r a t u r e , " pp. 17, 19; Don Gutteridge, "Affective F a l l a c y and the Student's Response to Poetry," E J, 61, No. 2 (1972), p. 215; and Ralph K. White, "Value Analysis: A Quantitative Method for Descri-bing Qualitative Data," Journal of S o c i a l Psychology. 19 (Feb. 1944), p. 351: There can be l i t t l e question as to the emotional and p r a c t i c a l s ignificance of free verbal expression. The freer i t i s — i . e . , the less i t i s determined by what the speaker thinks the l i s t e n e r wants to hear—the more v a l i d i t i s l i k e l y to be as an index of the speaker's own genuine emotional needs. See Hansson, pp. 264-5; and Holland, "Poems i n Persons: A Review and a Reply (The Reply)," p. 14. 32 J The better known schemes of Richards, Smith, Tyler et a l . , Taba, Squire, and Purves (see n. 51 below) provide only a t i n y sampling of the available schemes. 33 Purves, "IEA Literature," p. 8. 3^ T. W. Sussams, Poetry and the Teacher (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1949), pp. 46-7. 35 Smith, Tyler et a l . , pp. 308-9. 3 6 Loban, p. 254. 37 See B. C. Luchsinger, "Responses of Tenth-Grade Readers to Paired Complex and Less Complex Short Stories," Diss. Iowa 1969, p. 22, c i t i n g I r i o n and Thorndike; and Purves and Beach, p. 12. 195 3 8 See Early, "The IEA Literature Study: Two Reviews (The Second Review)," Res Teach Engl. 8, No. 1 (1974), p. 25; Faggiani, pp. 10-11; Smith, Tyler et a l , , p. 3695 and Vine, PP. 3^-5. J 7 See Purves, "Poems i n Persons: A Review and a Reply (The Review)," p. 11. ^° E.g. Ring, p. 160; and Glenn Harvey Skelton, "A Study of Children's Responses to Selected Poems i n the Fourth, F i f t h , and Sixth Grades," Dis s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 24, No. 9 (1964), p. 3642 ( C a l i f o r n i a [Berk.]). ^ E.g., Hansson, p. 283; Lemen, pp. 166-7; and Squire, "What Does Research i n Reading Reveal About Attitudes Towards Reading?" p. 528, c i t i n g Forman. Notice also the many free response studies using content analysis schemes l i k e that by Purves (n, 62 below). 42 See Purves, "An Examination of the V a r i e t i e s of Cr i t i c i s m , " pp. 94-5; and " L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m and Educational Measurement," p. 75-^3 E.g., Desmond Lawrence Cook, "An Investigation of Three Aspects of Free Response and Choice Type Tests at the College Level," D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 15, No. 8 (1955)t P» 1351 (Iowa); Hansson, pp. 263-4, 271; Lemen, p. 8, c i t i n g Taba; National Assessment of Educational Progress, pp. x i i i - x i v ; Purves, "Indoctrination i n Literature," p. 66; Purves et a l . , pp. 9-10, 40; S i s t e r Mary Justine Sabourin, "An Analysis of the Semantic Dimensions of the Aesthetic Response of College Students 196 to School Architecture," D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 25, No. 12 (1965), p. 7088 (Michigan); and Ruth Strang and Charlotte Rogers, "How Do Students Read a Short Story?" E J, 54, No. 9 (1965), p. 821. Rodney J. Barth, "Teaching Adolescent L i t e r a t u r e , " E J, 63, No. 2 (1974), p. 1 0 3 , .citing John Hurley and Jerry S u l l i v a n . ^5 Notice Sussams, p. 24: such i s the constitution of children that i t i s d i f f i c u l t to persuade them to remain i n a state of suspended judgment; t h e i r f i n a l verdict i s often indistinguishable from t h e i r f i r s t reaction. 46 See Bernard Berelson, Content Analysis i n Communication  Research (Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1952), pp. 13, 14-18; Lemen, pp. 70-1; Loban, pp. 200-1; and Ralph White, pp. 351-3-47 ' Cooper, "Measuring Appreciation of Literature," p. 19. Notice also Berelson, p. 114: As a matter of f a c t , a broad d e f i n i t i o n of "content analysis" would of course i n -clude a large part of the work i n l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m and i n t e l l e c t u a l and c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y generally, as well as a sizable amount of writings i n p o l i t i c a l history, p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l philosophy, rh e t o r i c , and indeed any f i e l d i n which the close reading of texts i s followed by summary and interpretation of what appears therein. Such a d e f i n i t i o n , however, i s f a r too broad f o r our purposes. 48 • Berelson, p. 116. ^9 See Berelson, p. 125. -5° Doris Muehl, ed., A Manual f o r Coders (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1961). I.A. Richards, P r a c t i c a l C r i t i c i s m (New York: Harcourt 197 Brace, 1939); Smith, Tyler,' et a l . j Hilda Taba, With Perspective  on Human Relations (Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1 9 5 5 ) ; Meckel, "An Exploratory Study of Responses of Adolescent Pupils to Situations i n a Novel," Diss. Chicago 1946; Loban; Squire, "The Responses of Adolescents to L i t e r a -ture"; Purves with Rippere. ^ Holland, "Poems i n Persons; A Review and a Reply (The Reply)," p. 14. Taba, p. v i i . J Purves and Beach, pp. 32-3. Notice Berelson, p. 115>re: the s e l e c t i o n of quotations and i l l u s t r a t i o n s from the content to be used i n enlivening and humanizing the report of frequencies by v a r i -ous categories. This i s sometimes ca l l e d "adding the q u a l i t a t i v e dimension• to a quanti-t a t i v e analysis." A l l i t adds, of course, are exemplifications of the categories. See Berelson, pp. 16, 18, 149; Howard Livingston, "The Effects of General Semantics on Responses to a Poem," Res Teach Engl. 3, No. 1 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , p. 28; and National Assessment of Educational Progress, p. x v i . -5? Cf. Lemen, p. 7 5 . ^ 8 Berelson, pp. 1 3 0 ; 147. 59 See, e.g., Berelson, p. 1 1 5 ; Luchsinger, p. 57; Purves, "Evaluation of Learning i n Lit e r a t u r e , " p. 714; Scribner, p. 147; and above, pp. 34-6. 60 -See, e.g., Berelson, p. 148; and Scribner, p. 148, c i t i n g Good, Barr and Scates. 1 9 8 6 1 See, e.g., Berelson, p. 148; and Purves with Rippere, PP. 1 - 5 . 6 2 For an example of researcher enthusiasm, see Cooper, Measuring Growth i n Appreciation of Literature, p. 2 0 . D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts to May 1 9 7 5 l i s t s at least 14- d i s s e r t a -tions employing the Purves-Rippere scheme. ^3 National Assessment of Educational Progress, Responding  to Literature : Theme 2 , Literature , pp. xv-xvi. For other reported problems with the Purves-Rippere scheme see Faggiani, pp. 2 9 8 - 9 ; Elizabeth Cole Morris, "Critique of a Short Story: An A p p l i c a t i o n of Purves's Elements of Writing About a L i t e r a r y Work," Di s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 3 4 , No. 1 1 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , pp. 7090A-1A (Columbia); James David Weiss, "The Relative E f f e c t s Upon High School Students of Inductive and Programmed Instruction i n the Close Reading of Poetry," D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 3 0 , No. 1 ( I 9 6 9 ) , p. 2 3 0 A (New York). See also below, pp. 58-9i and Purves and Bea'ch, pp. 1 2 , 1 4 - 1 5 . 64 As one example, Purves himself found Squire's scheme wanting, Purves with Rippere, p. 3 « ^ p. 148. In fact i t may always be "premature.1*- See D. Ibe Nwoga, "The Limitations of Universal C r i t i c a l C r i t e r i a , " Dalhousie Review. 5 3 , No. 4 ( 1 9 7 3 - 4 ) , pp. 6 0 8 - 6 3 0 , and Purves et a l . , p. 3 6 . 6 6 Notice Purves, "Assigning and Evaluating Essays," A Guide to Evaluation, ed. Cooper and Purves, p. 5 8 : A serious question i s the extent to which the judgment of the responses i s a c t u a l l y a judgment 199 of writing. To a certain extent i t i s , and must necessarily be so i n thi s highly verbal society we have. However, you must also consider the responses apart from t h e i r expression, to be concerned with whether a connection has been ^formulated and whether a connection has been made be-tween the work and the response. This i s the i n t e l l e c t u a l aspect of the task. I t may well be that superior responses w i l l appear i n unorthodox forms--for example, as interpretation of a poem through a highly developed picture or an epigram. 67 Cf. Gibbons, pp. 28-9; Hoffman, p. 309; Krathwohl et a l . , passim; National Assessment of Educational Progress, Responding to Literature; Theme 2, Literature, p. xiv; Purves, "An Examination of the Va r i e t i e s of Cr i t i c i s m , " pp. 9 8 - 9 ; Purves and Beach, p. v i i i ; Purves et a l . , Literature Education i n Ten Countries, p. 36; and Tomkins, "Testing i n English Literature: Toward a Better Rationale," pp. 44-5, et passim. 68 Cf. Cooper and Purves, p. 12. ^9 For an example of a scheme which does, see National Assessment of Educational Progress, Responding to Literature, pp. xv-xvi, 1 - 3 , 7. Also, see above, p. 41; and Hansson, quoted i n Chap. 1, n. 37• 7 0 p. 146. ^ Va l i d a t i o n by d e f i n i t i o n I take to be subsumed by "agreement." 200 7 2 See Purves, "An Examination of the Var i e t i e s of Cr i t i c i s m , " pp. 95, 97. 7 3 pp. 2, 41. ^ "The Responses of Adolescents to Lit e r a t u r e , " p. 354. 7 5 P. 357. 7 6 p. 248. 77 p. 282. 7 8 pp. 113, 1 3 0 - 8 , 145-7. 79 "The Acid Test for Literature Teaching," p. 67. 8 0 P . w. 8 1 p . 27V. 82 Berelson, p. 169. 8 3 For an explanation of the s t a t i s t i c a l notation, see below, pp. 10-1'-2. 84 Lemen, p. 75; Loban, p. 205; and Squire, "The Responses of Adolescents to Lit e r a t u r e , " p. 101. Bruce H. Choppin and Purves, "A Comparison of Open-Ended and Multiple-Choice Items Dealing With L i t e r a r y Under-standing," Res Teach Engl. 3 , No. 1 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , p. 2 3 . CHAPTER III Cf. James Hoetker, Students as Audiences (Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1971), P. 9 0 . p Cited by John Martyn, "Continuing Concerns," Newsletter (CCTE), 7, No. 4 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . • . - ; . . ; - : / 3 Cf. Lemen, p. 166; Squire, "English Literature," p. 467; 201 and Squire, "What Does Research i n Reading Reveal?" p. 523* * Purves, "Indoctrination i n Literature," p. 6 7 i Purves et a l . , pp. 313-4; and Squire, "What Does Research i n Reading Reveal?" pp. 523-5. 5 See Crawford, pp. 38-9. ^Stewart, p. 12, accepts Crawford's figures. 6 Reports of student d i s l i k e of class-taught poetry are legion. See, e.g., Norvell, The Reading Interests of Young People, pp. 52-3, 66; and Purves and Beach, pp. 78-9, 82, 88. 7 Cooper, Measuring Growth i n Appreciation of L i t e r a t u r e . p. 20; Early, "Literature and the Development of Reading S k i l l s , " p. 8; and Purves and Beach, p. 15, reporting Squire, p Richard Braddock, Selecting Novels f o r Group Reading (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1955), PP« 4-3, 4-5, 47, 52, 55; Loban, p. 250; Norvell, The Reading Interests  of Young People, pp. 52, 64-6, 85; Purves and Beach, pp. 195-6, 202; Sussams,' p. 46; and J.R. Wilson, p. 20. 9 See above, p. 17, n. 75. 1 0 Notice Richard J. Smith, Kenneth M. Jensen, and Mary Sue D i l l i n g o f s k i , "The Ef f e c t s of Integrating Reading arid Writing on Four Variables," Res Teach Engl. 5, No. 2 (1971), p. 189: In general, high scores for attitudes and comprehension that were achieved by the students at a l l three a b i l i t y l e v e l s i s probably the r e s u l t of giving reading material at or below the students' a b i l i t y l e v e l s . Unfortunately, students are often assigned material that i s too d i f f i c u l t f o r the l e v e l of t h e i r s k i l l s development, and t h e i r post-reading responses are disappointing. 202 See also: Purves, "IEA Literature," p. 21; Purves et a l . , p. 38; Purves and Beach, pp. 5> 202-3; and Vine, p. 162. There are no r e a d a b i l i t y formulas that cope adequately with poetry.. See also, Faggiani, p. 300, and Purves and Beach, p. 88. 1 1 See Smith, Tyler et a l . , pp. 268-9; and J.R. Wilson, p. 40. 1 2 Bridge, p. 73. John Edward Erickson, "Modifying Students' Tastes i n Poetry," Di s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 31, No. 4 (1970), p. 1684A (Wayne); Minnie Florence Mecklin, "Responses by 12th Grade Students to Selected Poems," Diss e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 33, No. 10 (1973), pp. 5617A-8A (Syracuse); Benny Frank Nelms, "Character-i s t i c s of Poetry Associated with Preferences of a Panel of Tenth Grade Students," D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 28, No. 8 (1968), p. 3153A (Iowa); and Purves and Beach, p. 81. 14 For the power of content r e l a t i v e to form see Cooper, "Research Roundup," p. 1056; Norvell, The Reading Interests of  Young People, pp. 52-3» 64; Purves and Beach, pp. 68, 79» 108, 202; and Sussams, p. 47. Andrews, "Author Biography and Poetry Study,",p. 42. 1 6 See e.g. Purves and Beach, pp. 82, 202; and School and College Conference on English, p. 53-1 7 E.g. H.A. C a r r o l l , "A Standardized Test of Prose Appreciation for Senior High School Pupils,".Journal of Educa-t i o n a l PsychologyV 23, No. 6 (1932); Evans, p. 15; Meckel, "An Exploratory Study of Responses of Adolescent Pupils," p. 36; 2 0 3 Rankin, pp. 2 0 , 1 2 9 ; Robert K. Speer, Measurement of Appreci-ation i n Poetry. Prose and Art, and Studies i n Appreciation (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1 9 2 9 ) ; and E.D. Williams, L. Winter and I.M. Woods, "Tests of L i t e r a r y Appreciation," B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology. 8 , Pt. 3 ( 1 9 3 8 ) , pp. 2 6 6 - 7 , 2 8 3 . 1 8 pp. 8 - 1 2 . Purves, et a l . , p. 5 1 ; and Stewart, pp. 8 - 1 1 . O A Norvell, The Reading Interests of Young People, p. 4-5; Purves and Beach, p. 1 9 8 ; and Sussams, p. 40. p - i Purves', "Indoctrination i n Literature," pp. 6 7 , 7 0 ; and Purves et a l . , pp. 2 6 , 5 3 . Purves, "Indoctrination i n Li t e r a t u r e , " pp. 6 9 r 7 0 ; and Purves and Beach, pp. 1 0 , 9 3 . J Cf. n. 4 above. Purves and Beach, p. 177 . 24 Rankin, p. 1 3 4 . Cf. Cooper, Measuring Growth i n Appreciation of Literature, pp. 1 5 - 1 6 . See above, p. 7 2 ; and Smith, Tyler et a l . , pp. 2 7 1 , 2 9 0 . P /• Andrews, "Author Biography and Poetry Study," p. 4 4 ; and Purves and Beach, p. 2 0 . 27 28 2 7 ' E.g. Hoffman, p. 1 9 ; Richards, p. 3 ; and Ring, p. 9 3 . Purves and Beach, pp. 147-8, 180. 2 9 7 Cooper, Measuring Growth i n Appreciation of Literature, p. 20; Early, "The IEA Literature Study," p. 24; Lemen, pp. 157-8; and Purves and Beach, pp. 149, 197. 204 3® Josephine A. Piekarz, "Individual Differences i n Inter-pretive Responses i n Reading," Diss. Chicago 1 9 5 4 , p. 6 2 . 31 y Upon well established precedent, e.g.: H.J. Eysenck, "Some Factors i n the Appreciation of Poetry and Their Relation to Temperamental Q u a l i t i e s , " Character and Personality [now Journal of Personality]. 9 (Sept. 1940-June 1 9 4 1 ) , p. 1 6 5 ; Lemen, p. 3 ; E.H. Peel, "The Analysis of Preferences," Research  Design a.nd the Teaching of English, ed. Russell, p. 1 1 2 ; Smith, Tyler et a l . , p. 280; Squire, "English Literature," p. 4 6 9 ; and Squire, "What Does Research i n Reading Reveal?" p. 5 2 8 . 3 2 E.g. Berelson, p. 1 6 8 ; Faggiani, pp. 2 9 8 - 9 ; and Squire, "The Responses'of Adolescents to Literature," p. 2 0 0 . 33 See above, p. 1 7 . 3^ R.E. Watters, "O r i g i n a l Relations: A Genographic Approach to the Literatures of Canada and A u s t r a l i a , " Canadian  Lit e r a t u r e . No. 7 (Winter 1 9 6 1 ) \ pp. 6 - 1 7 . 35 Northrop Frye, The Bush Garden (Toronto: Anansi, 1 9 7 1 ) . P. 2 1 5 . 3^ Pacey, Creative Writing i n Canada. 3 r d , ed, (Toronto: Ryerson, 1 9 6 4 ) , p. 2 . 37 Douglas Jones, B u t t e r f l y on Rock (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1 9 7 0 ) , p. 3 1 . 3^ See W.H. New, "Introduction," A r t i c u l a t i n g West (Toronto: New Press, 1 9 7 2 ) , p. xxv. 39 -Talk by Professor J.P. Matthews,",TS, Canadian Studies Foundation (c. 1971)» pp. 1 » 5 . 205 CHAPTER IV 1 Most i n v a l i d answers were those giving geographical types (e.g. marshland, sea-coast) instead of s p e c i f i c loca-tions, or those sta t i n g "nation" or "region" i n d i r e c t response to the question cue. (See "What Do You Know of These Poems?" Appendix I I , H.) For speculation on the incorrect hut v a l i d answers offered under Given Knowledge see below, pp. 112, 162. 2 See also above, p. 103. ^ C. Osgood, G. Suci and P. Tannenbaum, The Measure-ment of Meaning (Urbana, 111.: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1957), P. 37. ^ As they seem also to have been i n many studies. See Barnes et a l . , p. 67; and Squire, "The Responses of Adolescents to Literature," p. 45. CHAPTER V 1 See, e.g. Crawford, p. 4-7; Moisan p. 71; and Stewart, pp. 26-7. 2 Andrews, "Author Biography and Poetry Study," pp. 37~8, reviewing the work of Spingarn, Richards, Wimsatt, and C i a r d i . Notice also p. 38: An overemphasis on author biography misleads the student because . . . he w i l l read into poetry the raw facts of a poet's l i f e , not r e a l i z i n g that biographical elements are often so transformed that t h e i r personal meaning i s no longer personal, merely human. J "The Responses of Adolescents," p. 45. 206 4 See above, p. 19. 5 Significance i s best understood as an estimation of freedom from chance e f f e c t s , c o r r e l a t i o n as a power of pre-d i c t i o n . A r e l a t i o n s h i p which i s s i g n i f i c a n t ( i . e . i s probably not produced by chance) does not necessarily give a high power of predic t i o n . Cf. Purves, "Indoctrination i n Literature," p. 69s We found that i n general, the preferences of the students and teachers are more sim i l a r than d i f f e r e n t . ry . . . ' See above, p. 112; and Chap. 4, n. 1. Q There may be a p a r a l l e l between the effects of l a b e l l i n g i n t h i s study and Andrews' finding that biographical information about a poet increased student appreciation of that poet's works. See Andrews, "Author Biography and Poetry Study," p. 44. 9 "The IEA Literature Study," p. 24. See Beach, "The L i t e r a r y Response Process." SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY I BIBLIOGRAPHIC SURVEYS Blount, Nathan S. "Bibliography of Research i n the Teaching of English." Res Teach Engl. 1, No. 1 (1967) - 6, No. 2 (1972). Canadian Education Index. Ottawa: Canadian Council f o r Research i n Education. D i e t r i c h , Daniel J. "Bibliography of Research i n the Teaching of English." Res Teach Engl. 7, No. 1 (1973) - date. Diss e r t a t i o n Abstracts International. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms. Education Index. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company. Purves, Alan C , and Richard Beach. Literature and the Reader: Research i n Response to Li t e r a t u r e . Reading Interests. and the Teaching of Lite r a t u r e. Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1972. Research i n Education. (US/ERIC) Washington DC: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. ERIC Computer F i l e s . Washington,DC: NIE. II GENERAL Andrews, Larry. "Response to Literature: In Tennis the Service i s C r u c i a l . " E J, 63, No. 2 (1974), pp. 44-6. Barth, Rodney J. "Teaching Adolescent Literature." E J, 63, No. 2 (1974), pp. 103-5. Berelson, Bernard. ..Content Analysis i n Communication Research. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1952. Bishop,- Hal. "Research i n the Realm of Li t e r a t u r e . " Interpre-t i n g Language Arts Research f o r the Teacher, ed. Harold G. Shane et a l . ; Washington,DC: Association f o r Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA, 1971» pp. 98-105. 208 Blount, NathanS. "Research on.Teaching Li t e r a t u r e , Language and Compos i t i o n . " Second Handbook of Research on  Teaching, ed. Robert M.W. Travers; Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973, pp. 1072-97. Blyth, Marion D. "A Case for Irrelevance." E J, 59, No. 3 (1970), pp. 380-6. Brandt, Richard M. Studying Behavior i n Natural Settings. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972. B r i t t o n , James. "Response to Literature." A Common Purpose: The Teaching of English i n Great B r i t a i n . Canada and  the United States, ed. J.R. Squire; Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1965, pp. 3-10. .. Budd, William C. "Research Designs of Potential Value i n Investigating Problems i n English." Res Teach Engl. 1, No. 1 (1967), PP. 1-9. Burton, Dwight L. Literature Study i n the High Schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959. "Research i n the Teaching of English: The Troubled Dream." Res Teach Engl. 7, No. 2 (1973), pp. 160-89. "The IEA Study: Two Reviews (The F i r s t Review)." Res  Teach Engl. 8, No. 1 (1974), PP. 15 - 1 9 . "Well, Where Are We i n Teaching Literature?" E J, 6 3 , No. 2 (1974) , pp. 2 8-33. and John S. Simmons, eds. Teaching English i n Today's  High Schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, I 9 6 5 . Campbell, Donald T., and J u l i a n C. Stanley. "Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs f o r Research on Teaching.". Handbook of Research on Teaching., ed. N...L. Gage; Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963, pp. 171-246. Carlsen, G. Robert. "Literature IS." E J, 6 3 , No. 2 (1974) , pp. 2 3 - 7 . Choppin, B.H. "-Can. .Lit-e-rary. .A.ppr.e.cia-tio.n-..be-.Measured 0b ject-i v e l y ? " International Review of Education. 15, No. 2 (1969)., pp. 241-7. Cooper,--Charles- -R. "Attitude Scales." A Guide to Evaluation for Responding, ed. Charles R. Cooper and Alan C, Purves; Lexington, Mass.: Ginn, 1973, PP. 2 2 - 7 . "Doing Research / Reading Research." E J, 63, No. 2 (1974), pp. 9 4 - 9 . 2 0 9 "Measuring Appreciation of Literature: A Review of Attempts." Res Teach Engl. 5 , No. 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , pp. 5-23. Measuring Growth i n Appreciation of Li t e r a t u r e . Newark, Eel . : International Reading Association, 1972. "Research Roundup: Literature, Humanities, Media." E J, 62, No. 7 (1973), PP. 1056-8. and Alan C. Purves, eds. A Guide to Evaluation for  Responding. Lexington, Mass.: Ginn, 1973. De Mott, Benjamin. "Reading, Writing, Reality, Unreality . . . ." A Common Purpose: The Teaching of English i n Great  B r i t a i n . Canada .and the United States. ed. J.R. Squire; Champaign, 1 1 1 . : NCTE, 1965, pp. 3 1 - 4 8 . D i e t r i c h , D.J. "Teaching C u l t u r a l Appreciation Through Literature; NCTE/ERIC Report." E J, 6 l , No. 1 (1972) , . pp. 1 4 2 - 7 . Dixon, John. Growth Through English: A Report Based on the  Dartmouth Seminar 1966. Reading: NATE, I967 . Early, Margaret. "The IEA Literature Study: Two Reviews (The Second Review)." Res Teach Engl. 8, No. 1 (1974) , pp. 19-26. Literature and the Development of Reading S k i l l s . ED 019 209 (1968T. and Norine Odland. "Literature i n the Elementary and Secondary Schools." Review of Educational Research. 3 7 , No. 2 (1967), pp. 178-85. Edwards, A.L. Techniques of Attitude Scale. Construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957. F a r r e l l , Edmund J. Deciding the Future: A Forecast'Jof R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of Secondary Teachers of English. 1 9 7 0 -2000 A.D. Urbana, 111 . : NCTE, 1971. Finn, Jeremy D. "Measurement and Evaluation." Res Teach Engl. 7 , No. 2 (1973), PP, 2 1 2 - 3 9 . Forehand, G.A. "Problems of Measuring Response to Lite r a t u r e . " Clearing House. 40, No. 6 ( I 9 6 6 ) , pp. 369-75. Frye, Northrop. The Bush Garden. Toronto: Anansi, 1971. 2 1 0 Gage, N.L. "This Side of Paradigms:- The State- of Research on Teaching English.", Research Design and the Teaching, of English, ed. David H. Russell et a l . ; Champaign, 1 1 1 . : NCTE, 1 9 6 4 , p. 22 et seq. Gates, Arthur J. , and Frank G. Jennings.. "The Role of Motiva-ti o n . " Development In and Through Reading, ed. Nelson B. Henry; Chicago: The National Society f o r the Study of Education, 1 9 6 l , pp. 1 0 9 - 2 6 . Gelpi, E l s a . "The Enjoyment of Literature." ERIC Abstracts 032 515 (1969). Gerber, John. "Explosion i n English.". The Shape of English (NCTE Distinguished Lectures, I 9 6 7 ) ; Champaign, 1 1 1 . : NCTE, I 9 6 7 , pp. 1-14. Gibbons, Maurice. "Evaluation of Achievement i n L i t e r a t u r e . " Evaluation of E n g l i s h . 1 0 , ed. Geoffrey P. Mason; Vancouver: Educational Research Institute of B.C., 1 9 6 8 , pp. 20-40. Graves, Michael F. "An Experience Preserved: The Video Tapes of the Minnesota-NCTE Seminar." Res Teach Engl. 7, No. 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , PP. 2 8 5 - 9 0 . and Stephen M. Koziol J r . -'"The 1 9 7 3 Conference on Research i n English Education and Reading: Notes on the Training of Future Researchers." Res Teach Engl. 8 , No. 2 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , pp. 2 6 5 - 7 8 . Gunderson, Doris V. "Flaws i n Research Design." Res Teach Engl, 1 , No. 1 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , PP. 10-16. Guth, Hans P. English for_a New Generation. New York: McGraw H i l l , 1 9 7 3 . Gutteridge, Don. "Affective F a l l a c y and the Student's Response to Poetry." E J, 61, No. 2 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 2 1 0 - 2 1 . Hansson, Gunnar. - "Some Types of Research on Response to L i t e r a -ture." Res Teach Engl, 7, No. 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , PP- 260-84. Harding, D.W. "Response to Literature: The Report of the Study Group."- A Common Purpose: The Teaching of English i n  Great B r i t a i n , Canada and the United States, ed. J.R. Squire; Champaign, 1 1 1 . : NCTE, 1965, pp. H -27 . Harris, Roland. "Some Thoughts on Research and the Teaching of English.". Res Teach Engl, 2 , No. 1 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , pp. 5-13. Harvey, Robert. "NCTE/ERIC Report: Poetry i n Secondary Schools." E J, 59, No. 2.(1970), pp. 3 0 8 - 1 5 . 211 Hickman, Sara. "What's Relevant i n C l a s s i c a l Literature?" E J, 59, No. 3 (1970), pp. 375-9. Holland, Norman. "Poems - in- Persons: A Review and a Reply (The Reply)." Res Teach Engl. 8, No. 1 (1974), pp. 12-14. Jacob, P h i l l i p E. Changing Values i n College. New. York: Harper and Row, 1957' J o l l , Leonard W. "Development of Taste .in L i t erature, I I I : Developing Taste i n Literature i n the Junior High School." Elementary English, 40 , No. 2 ( I 9 6 3 ) , pp. I83-8, 217. Jones, Douglas. B u t t e r f l y on Rock. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970. Kahn, Norma B. "A Proposal f o r Motivating More Students to Lifetime Reading of Literature." E J, 63, No. 2 (1974) , pp. 34-43. Katz, D., and E. Stotland. "A Preliminary Statement of a Theory of Attitude Structure and Change." Psychology: A Study of-A- Science, Vol. .3: Formulations of the Person and  the S o c i a l Context. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959-Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioural Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Krathwohl, D. R., - B. S. Bloom, and B.C. Masia. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Class 1fication of Educational  Goals. Handbook I I : A f f e c t i v e Domain. New York: David McKay, 1964. Krech, David, Richard S. Crutchfield, and Egerton L. Ballachey. Individual i n Society. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Lazurus, A. "Performance Objectives i n Reading and Responding to L i t e r a t u r e . " E J, 61 , No. 1 (1972) , pp. 52-8. Leary, Bernice E. "Reading.Problems i n Literature." Reading i n the High School and College, ed. N.B. Henry; Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education,. 1948, pp. 138-50. Mason, Geoffrey P. "Some Problems i n Evaluating. English." Evaluation of English 10, ed. Geoffrey P.. Mason; Vancouver: Educational Research Institute of BC, 1968, pp. 101-10. Meckel, Henry C. "Research Designs Needed i n Studying the Teaching of Language and Literature i n the Secondary School.", Research Design and the Teaching of English, ed. David H. Russell et a l . ; Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1964, p. 82 et seq. 212 — "Research on Teaching Composition and Literature." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed, N.L. Gage; Chicago: Rand McNally, I963, pp. 966-IOO6. Morse, J. M i t c h e l l . "The Case for Irrelevance." College  English. 30, No. 3 (1968), pp. 201-11. Muller, H.J. The Uses of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967. Norris, Eleanor L., and John E. Bowes, eds. National Assessment  of Educational Progress: Literature Objectives. Ann Arbor: National Assessment of Eduational Progress, 1970. New, W.H. "Introduction." A r t i c u l a t i n g West: Essays on Purpose and Form i n Modern Canadian L i t e r a t u r e . Toronto: New Press, 1972, pp. x i - x x v i . Nwoga, D. Ibe. "The Limitations of Universal C r i t i c a l C r i t e r i a . " Dalhousie Review. 53, No. 4 (1973-4), pp. 608-30. Osgood, C , G. Suci, and P. Tannenbaum. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana', 111.: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1957. Pacey, Desmond. Creative Writing i n Canada. 3rd ed. Toronto: Ryerson, 1964. Purves, Alan C. "Assigning and Evaluating Essays." A Guide to  Evaluation f o r Responding, ed. Charles R, Cooper and Alan C. Purves; Lexington, Mass.: Ginn, 1973, PP. 53~9. "Designing the Board's New Literature Achievement Test." ED 022 748 (1968). "Evaluating Expressed Responses." A Guide to Evaluation  For Responding, ed. Charles R. Cooper and Alan C. Purves; Lexington, Mass.: Ginn, 1973, PP' 33-6. "Evaluation of Learning i n Literature." Handbook on  Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning, ed. Benjamin S. Bloom, J. Thomas Hastings, and George F. Madaus; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971, pp. 697-766. "An Examination of the V a r i e t i e s of C r i t i c i s m . " College  Composition and Communication. 27, No. 2 (1966), pp. 94--9. "Indoctrination i n L i t e rature." E J, 63, No. 5 (1974), pp. 66-70. " L i f e , Death and. the Humanities." College English. 31, No. 6 (1970), pp. 558-64. — " L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m and Educational Measurement: Toward 213 a Framework for Curriculum." A Guide to Evaluation f o r  Responding, ed. Charles R. Cooper and Alan C. Purves; Lexington, Mass.: Ginn, 1973» PP. 71-6. " L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m , Testing, and the English Teacher." College English, 28, No. 4 (196?). pp. 310-13-"The Nature of Achievement i n Literature: Some Notes on Evaluation and Accountability." A Guide to Evaluation  fo r Responding, ed. Charles R. Cooper and Alan C. Purves; Lexington, Mass.: Ginn, 1973, PP. 65-70. "Observation of Responses." A Guide to Evaluation f o r  Responding, ed. Charles R. Cooper and Alan C. Purves; Lexington, Mass.: Ginn, 1973, pp. 28-32. "Of Behaviours, Objectives and English." E J, 59, No. 6 (1970), pp. 793-7. "Poems i n Persons: A Review and a Reply (The Review)." Res Teach Engl. 8, No. 1 (197*0, pp. 9-12. "What i s Achievement i n Literature?" ED 013 064 (1967). and Richard Beach. Literature and the Reader: Research  in.Response to Literature. Reading Interests. and the  Teaching of Li t e r a t u r e . Urbana, 111.1 NCTE, 1972. Rosenblatt, L.M. "The Acid Test f o r Literature Teaching," E J, 45, No. 1 (1956), pp. 66-74. Literature as Exploration. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1938. "The Poem as Event." College English, 26, No. 2 (1964), pp. 123-8. Russell, David H. " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Through Literature." Childhood  Education. 25, No. 9 (1949), pp. 397-401 "Some Research on the Impact of Reading." E J, 47, No. 7 (1955), PP. 398-413. School and College Conference on English, A p r i l 1942. "Report of the Literature Committee." Issues Problems and  Approaches i n the Teaching of English, ed. G.W. Stone J r . ; New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963, pp. 41-65. 214 Seefeldt, Carol. "Toward Appreciation." Elementary English, 49, No. 5 (1972), pp. 787-92. Shaw, Marvin E., and J.M. Wright. Scales f o r the Measurement of Attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Squire, James R. "English Literature." Encyclopaedia of  Educational Research, ed. Robert L, Ebel, 4th ed. London: Macmillan, 1969, pp. 461-73. "Gleanings from the Dartmouth Discussions." Response  to Literature , ed. James R. Squire; Champaign, 111.: "Preface." Alan C. Purves and V i c t o r i a Rippere, Elements  of Writing About A L i t e r a r y Work; Champaign, 111.: NCTE, "What Does Research i n Reading Reveal About Attitudes Towards Reading?" E J, 58, No. 4 (1969), pp. 523-33-Steinberg, Erwin R., and G a r l i c A. Forehand. "Problems of Testing and Research Design i n Curriculum Study i n English." Research Design and the Teaching of English, ed. David H. Russell et a l . ; Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1964, p. 4 et seq. Talbert, Carol. "Anthropological Research Modes." Res Teach  Engl, 7, No. 2 (1973), PP. 190-211. Tezer, P h y l l i s . "The Culture Gap: Some Problems i n Under-standing English Literature." ED 037 453 (1969) Watters, R.E. "O r i g i n a l Relations: A Genographic Approach to the Literatures of Canada and A u s t r a l i a . " Canadian  Lit e r a t u r e , No. 7 (Winter I 9 6 I ) , pp. 6-17. Webb, Eugene J., D.T. Campbell, R.D. Schwartz, and L. Sechrest. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research i n the S o c i a l  Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally, I966. Wilson, Raymond J. "Transactional Analysis and Literature." D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 34, No. 12 (1973), P. 7793A III RESEARCH REPORTS Andrews, Larry. "Author Biography and Poetry Study." Res Teach  Engl, 4, No. 1 (1970), pp. 37-^. 215 "Author Biography and Poetry Study: I I . " Res Teach Engl, 6, No.. 2 (1972), pp. 176-80. Angelotti, Michael Louis. "A Comparison of Elements i n the Written Free Responses of Eighth Graders to a Junior Novel and An Adult Novel." Dissertation Abstracts. 33» No. 6 (1972), p. 2603A ( F l o r i d a ) . Ashley, L.F. "Children's Reading Interests and Individualised Reading." Elementary English. 4-7, No. 8 (1970), pp. 1088-96. Auerbach, Leo. "The Interaction Between So c i a l Attitude and Response to Three Short Stories." D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 35, No. 2 (1974), p. 711A (New YorkJ^ Barnes, Douglas, Peter Churley and Christopher Thompson. "Group Talk and L i t e r a r y Response." English i n Education. 5> No. 3 (1971), PP. 63-76. Beach, Richard. "The L i t e r a r y Response Process of College Students." English Record. 22 (Summer 1973), PP- 98-116. Beaven, Mary H. "Responses of Adolescents to Feminine Character i n L i t e r a t u r e . " Res Teach Engl. 6, No. 1 (1972), pp. 48-68. Birkman, Marlene Ann. "Children's Responses to Free Verse: An Inquiry." Dissertation Abstracts. 35, No. 1 (1974), p. I63A (PurdueK Braddock, Richard. Selecting Novels for Group Reading. New York: Teachers College, Columbia:- University, 1955. Bridge, E.B. "Using Children's Choices of and Reactions to Poetry as Determinants i n Enriching L i t e r a r y Experience i n the Middle Grades." Diss. Temple 1966. Burton, Dwight L. "The Relationship of L i t e r a r y Appreciation to Certain Measurable Factors." Journal of Educational  Psychology. 43, No. 7 (1952), pp. 436-9. C a r r o l l , H.A. "A Standardized Test of Prose Appreciation f o r Senior High School. Pupils." Journal of Educational  Psychology. 23, No. 6 (1932), pp. 401-10. Choppin, Bruce H., and Alan C. Purves. "A Comparison of Open-Ended and Multiple-Choice Items Dealing With L i t e r a r y Understanding." Res Teach Engl. 3, No. 1 (1969), pp. 15-24. 216 Cook, Desmond Lawrence. "An Investigation of Three Aspects of Free Response and Choice Type Tests at the College Level." D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 1 5 , No. 8 ( 1 9 5 5 )» p. 1351 (Iowa). Cragg, Edith Marion Catherine. "A Study of the Content of Literature Textbooks f o r English-speaking Students;".in Canadian High Schools i n Relation to International Under-standing between the United States and Canada and Canadian Unity." Diss. Northwestern 1950. Crawford, George. Barometer Rising. [Canada]: CCTE, 1973• Erickson, John Edward. "Modifying Students' Tastes i n Poetry." Dissertation Abstracts. 3 1 , No. 4 (1970), p. 1684-A (Wayne). Evans, J.L. "Two Aspects of L i t e r a r y Appreciation Among High School Students, Judgement of Prose Quality and Emotional Responses to L i t e r a t u r e , and Selected Aspects of Their Reading Interests." Diss. Minnesota 1968. Eysenck, H.J. "Some Factors i n the Appreciation of Poetry and Their Relation to Temperamental Q u a l i t i e s . " Character  and Personality [now Journal of Personality]" 9 (Sept. 1940-June 1941), pp. 160-7. Faggiani, L.A. "The Relationship of Attitude Response i n the Reading of a Poem by Ninth Grade Students." Diss. New York 1971. F a r r e l l , Edmund J. Deciding the Future: A Forecast of R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of Secondary Teachers of English. 1970-2000 A.D. Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1 9 7 1 . Foley, Joseph J. "A Comparison of Oral and Written Responses i n a Literature Examination." Dissertation Abstracts. 32, No. 2 (1971), 1977A-8A (Boston College). Gallo, D.R. "Journal Reading and Selected Measures of Teaching Effectiveness." Res Teach Engl. 4, No. 1 (1970), pp. 4 5 - 5 0 . Golub, Lester S., and Wayne C. Frederick. "An Analysis of Children's Writing Under Different Stimulus Conditions." Res Teach Engl. 4, No. 2 (1970), pp. 168-80. Graves, Michael F., and Stephen M. Koziol J r . "The 1973 Confer-ence on Research i n English Education, and Reading: Notes on the Training of Future Researchers." Res Teach Engl. 8, No. 2 (1974), pp. 265-78. 217 Hackett, M.G., et a l . "Study of Two Strategies i n the Teaching of Literature i n the Secondary School." School Review. 76, No. 1 (1968), pp. 67-83. Harris, Darlene, ed. "Canadapoems." TS, UBC (1974). Hoetker., James. Students as Audiences: An Experimental Study  of the Relationships between Classroom Study of Drama  and Attendance at the Theatre. Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1971. Hoffman, H.L. "The Responses of High School Seniors to Nine-teenth Century English L y r i c Poetry." Diss. Nebraska 1971. Lemen, Albert Lee. "A Comparison of Various Presentations i n Securing Appropriate Student Responses to Biographical L i t e r a t u r e . " Diss. C a l i f o r n i a (Berk.) 1952. Letton, Mildred. "Individual Differences i n Interpretative Responses i n Reading Poetry at the Ninth Grade Level." Diss. Chicago 1958. Livingston, Howard. "The Ef f e c t s of General Semantics on Responses to a Poem." Res .-Teach Engl. 3, No. 1 (1969), PP. 25-9. Loban, Walter. "Adolescents of Varying S e n s i t i v i t y and Their Responses to Literature Intended to Evoke Sympathy." Diss. Minnesota 1949. Lorimer, Margaret Frances. "A Comparison of Responses Made to Selected Pieces of Literature by High Scorers and Low Scorers on the Inventory of B e l i e f s . " D i s s e r t a t i o n  Abstracts, 20, No. 4 (1959), p. 1268 (Michigan). Luchsinger, B.C. "Responses of Tenth-Grade Readers to Paired Complex and Less Complex Short Stories." Diss. Iowa 1969. McKillop, Anne Selley. "The Relationship Between the Reader's Attitude and Certain Types of Reading Response." Diss e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 11, No. 3 (1951), pp. 590-1 (Columbia). Meckel, Henry Christian. "An Exploratory Study of Responses of Adolescent Pupils to Situations i n a Novel." Diss. Chicago 1946. Mecklin, Minnie Florence. "Responses by 12th Grade Students to Selected Poems." Dis s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 33, No. 10 (1973), PP. 5617A-8A (Syracuse). Menchise, Donald Nicholas. "Racial Bias as a Determinant of 218 L i t e r a r y Preference and the Relationship of Selected Variables to Patterns of Preference and Rejection of L i t e r a r y Works Whose Author's Race i s Known." Dis s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 33, No. 6 (1972), p. 26l°A (Connecticut). Morris, Elizabeth Cole. "Critique of a Short Story: An A p p l i -cation of Purves's Elements of Writing About a L i t e r a r y Work," Dissertation Abstracts. 34, No. 11 (1974), pp. 7090A-1A (Columbia). Muehl, Doris, ed. A Manual fo r Coders. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1961. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Highlights of the  F i r s t National Assessment of L i t e r a t u r e " [ U . S . A . ] : Education Commission of the States, 1972. Responding to Literature: Theme 2, L i t e r a t u r e . Denver, Col.: National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1973-Nelms, Benny Frank. "Characteristics of Poetry Associated with Preferences of a Panel of Tenth Grade Students." Dissertation Abstracts. 28, No. 8 (1968), p. 3153A (Iowa). Norvell, George W. The Reading Interests of Young People. [USA]: Michigan State University Press, 1973. What Boys and G i r l s Like to Read. Morriston, NJ: S i l v e r Burdett, 1958. Peel", E.H. "The Analysis of Preferences." Research Design and the Teaching of English, ed. David H. Russell et a l . ; Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1964. p. 112 et seq. Piekarz, Josephine A. "Individual Differences i n Interpretive Responses i n Reading." Diss. Chicago 1954. Purves, Alan C. "IEA Literature; F i n a l Report (Revised)." TS, IEA (June 1971). Arthur W. Foshay, and Gunnar Hansson. Literature  Education i n Ten Countries: An Empirical Study. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973. with V i c t o r i a Rippere. Elements of Writing About a L i t e r a r y Work. Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1968. Rankin, Marie^' Children's Interests i n Library Books of F i c t i o n . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1944. 219 Richards, I.A. P r a c t i c a l C r i t i c i s m : A Study of L i t e r a r y  Judgement. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1939• Ring, Jerry Ward. "A Study of the Interpretive Processes Employed by Selected Adolescent Readers of Three Short Stories." Diss. Ohio 1968. Sabourin, S i s t e r Mary Justine. "An Analysis of the Semantic Dimensions of the Aesthetic Response of College Students to School Architecture." D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 25 , No. 12 (1965). p. 7088 (Michigan). Schubert, Delwyn A. "The Relationship Between Reading A b i l i t y and L i t e r a r y Appreciation." C a l i f o r n i a Journal of  Educational Research. 4 . No. 5 (1953) , PP. 201-2. Scribner, Marion Isobel. "The Responses of Students, Teachers and C r i t i c s to Selected Poetry." Diss. C a l i f o r n i a (Berk.) I960. - Shablaky, Scott Lee. "The E f f e c t s of Different Types of Guide Materials and Manner of Presentation on Ninth Graders* Cur i o s i t y Toward and Response to Selected Short Stories." D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 34, No. 10 (1974) , p. 6524A (Syracuse). S h e r r i l l , Laurence Lester. "The A f f e c t i v e Responses of Ethnic Minority Readers to Indigenous Ghetto Literature: A Measurement." Dis s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 34, No. 1 (1973), pp. 348A-9A (Wisconsin). Shirl e y , Fehl L, "Influence of Reading on Concepts , Attitudes and Behavior." Journal of Reading. 12, No. 5 (1969)? pp. 369-72. Skelton, Glenn Harvey,. "A Study of Children's Responses to Selected Poems i n the Fourth, F i f t h , and Sixth Grades." Dis s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 24, No. 9 (1964), p. 3642 ( C a l i f o r n i a [Berk.]). Smith, Richard J. "The E f f e c t of Reading f o r a Creative Purpose on Student Attitudes Toward a Short Story." ED 017 437 (1968). and Thomas Burns. "The Effects of Different I n s t r u c t i o n a l Practices on Student Enjoyment and Interpretation of a Ballad." Journal of Reading. 13, No. 5 (1970), pp. 345~54. Kenneth M. Jensen, and Mary Sue D i l l i n g o f s k i . "The E f f e c t s of Integrating Reading, and Writing on Four V a r i r ables." Res Teach Engl. 5 , No. 2 (1971), pp. 179-89. 220 Smith, Eugene R., Ralph Tyler, and Evaluation. Staff-. Appraising  and Recording Student Progress: Adventures i n American  Education New York: Harper, 194-2. Speer, Robert K. Measurement of Appreciation i n Poetry. Prose and Art, and Studies i n Appreciation. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1929* Squire, James R. "The Responses of Adolescents to Literature Involving Selected Experiences of Personal Development." Diss. C a l i f o r n i a (Berk.) 1956. The Responses of Adolescents While Reading Four Short  Stories. Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1964. Stewart, Sandra. Course Countdown: A Quantitative Study of  Canadian Literature i n the Nation's Secondary Schools. Toronto: CANLIT, 1974. Stout, Douglas Alexander. "The Responses of College Freshmen to Characters i n Four Short Stories." D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 2 5 , No. 3 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , p. 1794 ( C a l i f o r n i a [Berk.]). Strang, Ruth, and Charlotte Rogers. "How Do Students Read a Short Story?" E J, 5 4 , No. 9 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , PP. 819 - 2 3 , 829. Sussams", T.W. Poetry, and the Teacher. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1949. Taba, Hilda* With Perspective on Human Relations. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1955. Tatara, Walter T. "Effects of Novels on Ideas About the S c i e n t i s t . " The Journal of Educational Research. 5 8 , No. 1 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , pp. 3-9. Telford, J.P. "A Comparison of Student Response to a C o l l e c t i o n of O r i g i n a l Stories, Poetry and Discussion Lessons." Diss. Wayne State 1968. Vine, Harold J. "Affective Understanding and the Reading of Poetry..'! Diss. Syracuse 1970. Wainer, H., and W. Berg. "The Dimensions of De Maupassant." American Educational Research Journal. 9, No. 4 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 4 8 5 - 4 9 1 . Weiss, James David. "The Relative E f f e c t s Upon High School Students of Inductive and Programmed Instruction i n the Close Reading of Poetry." D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 3 0 , No. 1 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , p. 230A (New York). 221 Wethington, Charles Turner. "A Study of the Relationships Between Attitude-Toward-English and Several Selected Variables." D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 3 1 , No. 4 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , pp. I637A-8A (Kentucky). White, Ralph K. "Value Analysis: A Quantitative Method f o r Describing Qualitative Data." Journal of So c i a l Psy-chology. 19 (Feb. 1 9 4 4 ) , pp. 351-8. Williams, E.D., L. Winter, and I.M. Woods. "Tests of L i t e r a r y Appreciation. 1 1 B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology. 8, Pt. 3 (1938), pp. 265-83. Wilson, James R. Responses of College Freshmen to Three Novels. Champaign, 111.: NCTE, 1 9 6 6 . Woodyard, Mary Ann. "The Effe c t s of Teaching Black Literature to a Ninth-Grade Class i n a Negro High School i n Picayune, M i s s i s s i p p i . " D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 3 2 , No. 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , p. 317A (Tennessee). Yousef, F.S. "Cross-cultural Testing: an Aspect of the Resistance Reaction." Language Learning. 18 (Dec. I968), pp. 227 - 3 4 . IV MATERIAL DISCUSSING THE PLACE OF CANADIAN LITERATURE IN THE ENGLISH CURRICULA OF CANADIAN SECONDARY SCHOOLS. Bailey, Steve. "Canadian Literature i n an I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Setting: Canadian Studies at McPherson Park.'.' (BCETA), The Winter Journal 1 5 , No. 1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , PP. 1 3 - 2 0 . B i s s e t t , B i l l . "On What Secondary English Should be About." Update (BCETA), 1 5 , No. 5 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , pp. 2 - 3 . Birney, Earle. "Introduction." Twentieth Century Canadian  Poetry. Toronto: Ryerson, 1 9 5 3 , PP. x i i i - x i v . Bowering, George. "Our Colonial.Profs." The English Quarterly. 4 , No. 3 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , PP. 7 7 - 8 . "What.Elementary and Secondary School .English Should Be About." Update. 1 5 , No. 1 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , pp. 2 - 3 . Cook, Ramsay. "The Uses of Literature i n Cultural History." The English Quarterly". 4 , No. 3 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , PP. 8 - 1 1 . Donaldson, Florence. "Canadian L i t e r a t u r e for Senior High Schools." TS, UBC (n.d.). 222 Dudek, Louis-. "Teaching English i n Canada." The English Quarterly. 4 , No. 3 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , pp. 7 - 1 3 -"Teaching English i n Canada." Monday Morning. 6 , No.2,(1971), PP. 18 - 2 0 . and Irving Layton. "Introductory Note." Canadian Poems; 1850-1952. Toronto: Contact Press, 1 9 5 2 . Egoff, Sheila. The Republic of Childhood: A C r i t i c a l Guide to  Canadian Children's Li t e r a t u r e i n English. Toronto: Oxford University Press, I967. F a r r e l l , J. "How to be a Canadian and Teach English." The English Quarterly. 3 , No. 3 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , pp. 4 - 1 - 3 . Gee, T.W. "Teaching a Unit i n Canadian L i t e r a t u r e . " Alberta  English. 11 (Summer 1971), pp. 1 0 - 1 3 . Gray, J.M. "Writers We Need i n Canada." The English Quarterly. 2 , No. 2 (I969), PP. 4 5 - 5 2 . Hale, A l i c e i K . "General Comments About the Teaching of Canadian Literature." Halifax, NS: Lighthouse Learning Pro.iect. A t l a n t i c I n s t i t u t e of Education. "More Thoughts on Teaching Canadian Literature." Education Nova Scotia. 4 , No. 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , PP. 6 - 7 . "The Short Story: An Introduction to Canadian L i t e r a -ture." Halifax, NS: Lighthouse Learning Project. A t l a n t i c I n s t i t u t e of Education. "Teaching Canadian Literature: I t Can Be Fun." Halifax, NS: Lighthouse Learning Project. A t l a n t i c I n s t i t u t e of Education. "Teaching Canadian Literature: The Short Story." Education Nova Scotia". 4 . No. 6 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , PP« 1 - 2 . Hodgetts, A.B. What Culture? What Heritage?; A Study of C i v i c Education i n Canada. Toronto: 0ISE, 1 9 6 8 . Humphreys, Edward A. "Foreword." Focus on Canadian Studies, ed. Humphreys; Toronto: 0ISE, 1 9 6 9 . Leber, Maurice. "Approaches to Canadian Literature." The  English Quarterly. 4 , No. 4 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , PP. 6 8 - 7 0 . Livesay, Dorothy. "On Teaching Canadian Literature." The . Winter Journal (BCETA), 1 5 , No. 1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , PP. 1 3 - 2 0 . 223 "On -Teaching Our.Own: A Horizontal View." The English Quarterly. 4, No. 4 (1971), pp. 75~78. Lockhart, M, "Let's Explore Canadian Literature." Manitoba  Teacher. 4-9, No. 6 ( 197D, p. 4. Martyn, John. "Continuing Concerns." Newsletter (CCTE), 7, No. 4 (1974), n.p. Mathews, Robin'. "Canadian Literature: The Necessary. Revolution." TS, London, Ont.: Laurier High School (1972). "Research, Curriculum, Scholarship, and Endowment i n the Study of Canadian Literature." The English Quarterly. 5» No. 3 (1972), pp. 39-46. "Why Canadian Literacy i s So Rare i n Our Schools." Reporting Classroom Research. 3» No. 1 (1974), pp. 2-5. Matthews, J.P. "Talk by Professor J.P. Matthews." TS, Canadian Studies Foundation [1971]. Mickleburgh, B r i t a . "The Freshness of t h i s F i e l d . " Monday  Morning. 2, No. 4 (1967), pp. 28-29. "Here's Over 40 Canadian Works." Monday Morning. 2, No. 3 (1967), pp. 3 2 - 3 . "How Do We Get Started?" Monday Morning. 2, No. 2 (1967), pp. 26-7. "This Class Probed Canadian Literature A l l Through the Year." Monday Morning. 6, No. 2 ( 1 9 7 l ) i PP« 12-17. "We Teach English Like a Foreign Language." Monday  Morning.: No. 1 (Sept. 1967), pp. 22 - 3 . Moisan, Clement. "L»enseignement de l a litte'rature Canadienne." Focus, on Canadian Studies. ed. Edward H. Humphreys; Toronto: OISE, I969, pp. 69-80. Pacey," Desmond. "Comments on Clement Moisan." Focus on Canadian Studies. ed. Edward H. Humphreys; Toronto: OISE, I969, pp. 81-82. "A Plea f o r the Study of Our Own Literature." Curriculum  B u l l e t i n (Manitoba), 3 (May I969), pp. 3"4. Rea, Charles L. "Canadian Literature: A Centennial Project." The B u l l e t i n (Ontario Secondary Schools), 46, No. 1 TT966) , pp. 93-4. 224 Shack, S y b i l . "We're A l l . Canadians Here." Monday Morning. 1, No. 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , p. 8. Snow, K.M. "Canadian Literature in. the. Schools." BC English  Teacher, 10, No. 1 ( I 9 6 9 ) , p. 3 9 . Stephen, A.M. "Canadian Literature i n Schools." 1926; r p t . Query (Jan.-Feb. 1973), pp. 21-24. Stubbs, Elizabeth C. "A Proposed Course i n Canadian Literature f o r Community College Students." TS, UBC, 1967. "Teaching About Canadian L i f e and Culture; Symposium." S o c i a l  Education. 35, No. 6 (1971) , pp. 5 5 8 - 6 2 9 . Tomkins, George. "National Consciousness, the Curriculum and Canadian Studies." The Journal of Educational Thought. 7, No. 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 5-2-T. Wilson, L. ' "Home i s Where You Hang Your Childhood; a Case f o r Canadian Literature." Arbos. 7, No. 1 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , pp. 2 0 - 2 . V. SOURCES OF POEMS (Selected: Volumes from which poems were a c t u a l l y taken f o r the se l e c t i o n of p a i r s . * indicates the number of poems taken for the f i n a l pairs.) Canada General Dover, K. P h y l l i s , ed. Poetry: An Anthology f o r High Schools. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1 9 6 4 . * Dudek, Louis, ed.. Poetry.of Our Time: An Introduction  toTwentieth Century Poetry Including Modern  Canadian Poetry. Toronto: Macmillan, 1 9 6 6 . * Forman, Joan, ed. Looking Through a Diamond. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971 Gillanders-,—Carol, ed. . Theme and Image: An Anthology of  Poetry. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1967'.* 225 Gustafson, Ralph, ed. The Penguin Book of Canadian Verse. 2nd. ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin, I967.* Hodgins, Jack, and William H. New, eds. Voice and V i s i o n . Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1972. Hogan, Homer, ed. Listen!: Songs and Poems of Canada. Toronto: Methuen, 1972. Poetry of Relevance. 2 vols. Toronto: Methuen, 1970. Mandel, E l i , ed. Eight More Canadian Poets. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.* ed. Five Modern Canadian Poets. Toronto: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Metcalfe, John, ed. The Speaking Earth: Canadian  Poetry Selected. Toronto: Van Nostrand and Rineholt, 1973. Procunier, Edwin R., ed. The Patrio t and His Land. Agincourt, Can.: Book Society of Canada, 1971. Purdy, A. W., ed. F i f t e e n Winds. Scarborough: McGraw-H i l l Ryerson, 1970. B r i t i s h Columbia Bowering, George. George, Vancouver, Toronto: Weed Flower Press, 1970. In the Flesh. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1974. Touch: Selected Poems I960-I97O. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1971. Davey, Frank. Bridge Force. Toronto: Contact, 1965. D-Day and After . Vancouver: Tishbooks, 1962. Four Myths f o r Sam Perry. Vancouver: Tishbooks, 1970. Weeds. Toronto: Coach House Press, 1970. Sward, Robert, et a l . , eds. Vancouver Island Poems: Anthology of Contemporary Poetry. V i c t o r i a , BC: Soft Press, I963. i • . 226 Wah, Fred. Tree. Vancouver: Vancouver Community Press, 1 9 7 2 . et a l . f Cotinneh Place. "1 Castlegar: Cotinneh Books, 1 9 7 3 . Watters, R.E., ed. B r i t i s h Columbia: A Centennial  Anthology. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1 9 5 8 . * * * West Coast Review. Vancouver, B C * Yates, J. Michael, ed. Contemporary Poetry of B r i t i s h  Columbia. Vancouver: UBC, 1 9 7 0 . * * * New Zealand Brown, J.G., ed. Verse f o r You: Book Three—A Collec-t i o n of Verse f o r Senior Forms. London: Longman, 1 9 5 6 . * * * Curnow, Al l e n , ed. The Penguin Book of New Zealand Verse. 2 n d . ed. Auckland: Blackwood and Janet Paul, 1 9 6 6 . * * * * Hogan, Helen M., ed. Nowhere Far From the Sea. Christchurch: Whitcombe and Tombs, 1 9 7 1 . * * * McKay, Frank, ed. New Zealand Poetry: An Introduction  Through the Discussion of Selected Poems. Wellington: New Zealand University Press, 1 9 7 0 . * 0 ' S u l l i v a n , Vincent, ed. New Zealand Poetry i n the S i x t i e s : A B u l l e t i n f o r Schools. Wellington: Department of Education, 1973• Smart, Peter R., ed. Exploring New Zealand Writing: An  Anthology f o r Senior Students. Wellington: A.H. and A.W. Reed, 1 9 6 4 . * APPENDICES APPENDIX I THE POETRY SAMPLE 229 A SOME POEM PAIRS Six poem pairs are displayed as examples; three each from the RC/NZ and BC/NZ poem sub-groups. A f u l l l i s t of the sample poems appears under Introduction to Teachers (Appendix II, A). Samples are shown as they were presented i n the Given Knowledge condition and i n Order 1 (except that they have been reduced from 14" sheets. The glossaries appeared at the bottom of the 14" sheets). Changes that were made f o r the Denied Knowledge condition are shown i n square brackets. 230 [ P a i r 3/4] from: TO HOLD IN A POEM \A Canadian Poem) I would take words As c r i s p and as white As our snow; as our b i r d s . / D K :"our"="the^7 S w i f t and sure i n t h e i r f l i g h t ; As c l e a r and as c o l d As our i c e ; as s t r o n g as a j a c k p i n e ; As young as a t r i l l i u m , and o l d As L a u r e n t i a ' s l o n g undulant l i n e ; £pK:"As the m o u n t a i n s ^ Sweet-smelling and b r i g h t As new r a i n ; as h a r d And as smooth and as white As a brook pebble c o l d and unmarred: To h o l d i n a poem of words L i k e water i n c o l o u r l e s s g l a s s The s p i r i t of mountains l i k e b i r d s , Of f o r e s t s as p o i n t e d as g r a s s . . . P o s s i b l y D i f f i c u l t Words: (Of course the poet may i n t e n d the words :to convey much more than t h e i r simple meanings o r even i n t e n d something d i f f e r e n t from them.; austere-»-stern; s e v e r e l y s i m p l e , u n d u l a n t — w a v y 231 [ P a i r 3 A ] I from: TO AN EXPATRIATE (Non-Canadian) Pine f o r the needles brown and warn, t h i n k o f your nameless n a t i v e h i l l s , the s e a g u l l s landward blown by storm, the r a b b i t that the b l a c k dog k i l l s . Swing w i t h the k e l p the ocean sucks, c a l l to the winds and hear them r o a r , the w e s t e r l y t h a t r i p s the f l a x , the madman at the n o r t h e a s t door. Dream o f the mountain creek t h a t s p i l l s among the stones and c o o l s your f e e t , the breeze t h a t sags on smoky h i l l s , the bubble of the noonday heat... P o s s i b l y D i f f i c u l t Word: (Of course the poet may i n t e n d the word to convey much more than i t s simple meaning or even i n t e n d something d i f f e r e n t from i t . ) e x p a t r i a t e — one l i v i n g away from h i s n a t i v e l a n d k e l p — a seaweed 232 [ P a i r 9/10] / Lagoons, Hanlan's Point (A Canadian Poem) Mornings before the pun's l i o u i d s p i l l e d g r a d u a l l y , f l o o d i n g the i s l a n d ' s c o o l c e l l a r , there vas the boat and the s t i l l lagoons, with the sound of my oars the only i n t r u s i o n over c r i e s of b i r d s i n the marshy shallows or the loud thrashing of the s t a r t l e d crane rushing the a i r . And i n one strange dark, tree-hung entrance, I followed the sound of my heart a l l the way to the reed-blocked ending, with the pads of the l i l y t h i c k as green-shining f i l m covering the water. And i n another where the sun came to probe the depths through a shaft of branches, I saw the skeletons of hro-m ships r o t t i n g f a r below i n t h e i r burial-ground, and wondered what stranpe f i r h with v-hat strange cnlours swam through these palaces under the water... A s n a i l boy with a flat-bottomed punt and an old p a i r of oars moving with wonder through the antechamber of a waking world. Possible D i f f i c u l t 'Vords: (Of course the poet may intend tVese ^ords to convey much more than t h e i r simnle meanings, or even intend something d i f f e r e n t from them.) antechamber — room leading to a main room. [ P a i r 9/10] z . The Anchorage (Non-Canadian) Fifteen or twenty feet below, The l i t t l e fish conie creeping round the anchor chain. I could not have i t nuieter now, Not anywhere; nor could tl-ere be less movement Anywhere at a l l , than here. The bay moves on into night. The shadows come to vatch and wait in every hollow T i l l they have gathered-in a l l . But moon comes over the rocks; she lights the l i t t l e f a l l And r i s e and f a l l at the beach. Deep water, deep bay So s t i l l and calm for one whole night i n the south-ea That day has never come, And I am s t i l l upon my knees out on the stern, And you and I s t i l l watch Down twenty, thirty feet below. [ P a i r 11/12] PRAIRIE BRED (A Canadian Poem) Caged by the s m a l l and f e r t i l e garden p l o t That f i t s too t i g h t l y on h i s g i a n t frame, He turns h i s back upon the p r i s o n i n g h i l l s And r e s t s o l d p r a i r i e eyes upon the sea: Searching f o r space to f r e e h i s c a p t i v e thought, S t r e t c h i n g h i s gaze upon the bigness t h e r e . He f a n c i e s on i t s r e s t l e s s , changing f a c e The shadowy l i g h t and dark of r i p p l i n g green That f i t the p r a i r i e contours t h a t he l o v e d , W i l l i n g the wheeling s e a g u l l s ' p l a i n t i v e mew To be above a new-ploughed f i e l d i n S p r i n g . Or, i f the d y i n g sun has g i l t the waves, sees there The r e s t l e s s , shimmering g o l d of r i p e n i n g wheat. Eyes t h a t have looked unhindered down the m i l e s , Or searched the mounting cloudbanks f o r the r a i n , Feast i n an aching freedom on the sea. A s a l t breeze l i c k s the weatherbeaten f a c e Parched by a p r a i r i e wind, b i t t e n by f r o s t , O f f e r i n g k i n s h i p from the b r i n y f i e l d s To p r a i r i e ; schooner come a t l a s t to p o r t . P o s s i b l y D i f f i c u l t Word: (Of course the poet may i n t e n d the word t o convey much more than i t s simple meaning or even i n t e n d something d i f f e r e n t from i t . ) g i l t — cover w i t h t h i n l a y e r of g o l d l a i d on as gold l e a f ; c o l o u r w i t h gold 235 [ P a i r 11/12] CANTERBURY (Non-Canadian) /DK: THE PLAINS/ On t h i s great p l a i n the eye Sees l e s s of l a n d than sky, And men seem to i n h a b i t here A3 much the c l o u d - c r o s s e d hemisphere As the f l a t e a r t h . Trains t r a v e l f a s t and s t r a i g h t , And t r a v e l l e r s e a r l y or l a t e Think of t h e i r d e s t i n a t i o n More'''.than of p a s t u r e , w h e a t f l e l d , wayside s t a t i o n . Here b i r d s and winds f l y f r e e , And tree i s m i l e s from t r e e Except where i n dark ranks they muster Against the gales or c l u s t e r B e f r i e n d i n g l o n e l y farms. T i r e d tramps and trampers f a r e Sadly along the endless roads, but the hare Is l u c k y , and the magpie, b l a c k and white Highwayman w i t h h i s shout. Sounds are soon dead being echoless I n the v a s t emptiness, Though thunder and the ocean r o a r Carry, on calm days, f a r : And some sounds h a r d l y ever r e s t : The sound of wind from nor'east or nor'west And three great r i v e r s w i t h proud Maori names /DK; n a t i v e C h a f i n g worn s h i n g l e t i l l the ocean tames names" T h e i r w i l d n e s s . This i s my h o l y l a n d —' Of c h i l d h o o d . T r y i n g to comprehend And l e a r n i t l i k e the f e a t u r e s of a f r i e n d , S i g h t r i d e s on power-poles and tops of t r e e s From the l o n g e a s t e r n beaches and l o u d seas League a f t e r league T i l l d e f i n i t i o n fades i n b l u i s h vague D i s t a n c e : then dreams begin To see i n v i s i o n c o l o u r l e s s and t h i n Beyond the western f o o t h i l l s l o s t The huge and d e s o l a t e ranges of the Coast. P o s s i b l y D i f f i c u l t Word: (Of course the poet may i n t e n d the word'bo convey much more than i t s simple meaning or even i n t e n d something d i f f e r e n t from i t . ) Chafing rubbing a g a i n s t / [ P a i r 13/14] MOONDANCE ( A B.C. Poem) moonrise moon mossdance dance In the moonlight lightcedar fringed and hewn to cross cross logs i n benched i n rock i n rockflakes of micachips flashing i n dancelight a l i g h t slope down to a greytide groycold black eedarback right back to splayhills h i l l c l i f f e d g e i n moontime i n moonshells from a suncold time age under moonclouds i n moontime daedalion s p i r i t waits to test unwithered veinwings veinwings wingveindance wingrise vein windance Possibly D i f f i c u l t Word: (Of course the poet may intend the word to convey much more than i t s simple meaning or even intend something different from i t . ) splayed -- spread or turned out daedalion cf. Daedalian i n the manner of Dnedalus, the Greek inventor who bu i l t the Labyrinth (a maze) [ P a i r 13/14] 2. HILL-COUNTRY (Non-Canadian) White sky, mountains mount High; near, terraced, clear Groined, shouldered Black-bouldered. Sallow f l a t s l i e Dry. Yellow broom blooming Pollen-heavy. Bees hum Come from a i r t h e r e — Bare, bleak, blue-t>eak Towers over mountain flower-Bees come, hum home Hone to hive in house-wall F a l l . A l l heard, small bird; Wind strums over plain: Thin grass sounds in winds As winds pass. Rock-face, clay f a l l e n away Gravel sluices loose for gold Travels down, s i l t s over Old boulders. Land-lover Here stand, stay. Sallow f l a t , yellow f l a t , willow-flat Pass. Let pass hill-wind, h i l l - g r a s s : Here stay: lay aside Dry brick, sun dried. Here stay, deep in clay Sun-clay, water-clay Gouged out, gaping clay Clay. Possibly D i f f i c u l t V/ord: (Of course the poet may intend the word to convey much more than i t s simple meaning or even intend something different from i t . ) sallow — pale yellow or brown 238 [ P a i r 17/18] N O O N : V A N C O U V E R H A R B O U R ( A - B . C . Poem) / E K : N O O N : T H E H A R B O U R J T ' s h e l l f i s h bubble p a n t i n g sea-worms bake when s u n l i g h t g l a r i n g on uncovered mud. keeps the harbour-bed awake. and then the sounds of oceans "oedded underground and n o i s e s from the s e c r e t s t o r e s o f clams are heard a l o n g the shore. monotonously the crabs push stones. the seaweeds t u r n to brown and from t h e i r whitened cones sad b a r n a c l e s l e t s a l t n e s s s l o w l y down. alo n g the shore where s i l t i s deep s a l t water i s sprawled o u t — a s l e e p . . . ...a s e a g u l l w i t h a l e g upon a post stands r e p l e t e , contented, and almost u n i n q u i s i t i v e — w a i t i n g f o r t h e t i d e t o f l o o d . h a l f - w o n d e r i n g whether anything's asleep beneath the coolness of a deep shadow where an o l d scow r i d e s hard-over on a t i d e o f baking mud. P o s s i b l y D i f f i c u l t Word: (Of course the poet may i n t e n d t h i s word to convey much more than i t s simple meaning, or even i n t e n d something d i f f e r e n t from i t . ) r e p l e t e — f i l l e d (e.g. w i t h food) 239 [ P a i r 17/18] 2 : ESTUARY (Non-Canadian) A ghost the tide moves In and out. Unreal the f a r plantations pass. Low cloud hovers above, devout, And rock flourishes among the grass. The impudent yacht avoids the mud And tacks upon the farther bank; And s t i l l the remorseless ebb and flood Uncovers and covers shoals and the rank Green weeds the seabirds wode among, And tins and t i r e s . The skies Yawn blankly over the unhung Landscape. The soft wind dies, And dies with i t the sea beyond. The e l e c t r i c sunset glows Unpaid upon this changing pond. We hurry past and the slow tide flows. Possibly D i f f i c u l t Words: (Of course the poet may Intend these words to convey much more than their simple meanings, or even intend something different from them.) plantations -- area of growing plants (especially trees) planted by men devout prayerful, pious, genuine impudent — disrespectful, cheeky 24-0 [ P a i r 19/20] NIGHT POEM, VANCOUVER ISLAND ( A B.C. Poem) /35K: NIGHT POEM, THE ISLAND_7 The wind's i n the west t o n i g h t , heavy w i t h t i d a l sound; the hush and r a t t l e o f t r e e s , the indrawn b r e a t h of the shore, do what they must; waves s l a p a t the t i p and stagger of stones, and the n i g h t t o n i g h t i s b l a c k ; blackness w i t h o u t i n t e n t moves over the globe as waters move. The shoals are n o s i n g i n t o the storm. Blackness moves over the globe. W i l l t h i s wind never drop? The house, awash w i t h a i r , swings i n t o the dark, and, a l l i t s lamps a b l a z e , c h a l l e n g e s time and f e a r . I see a w a l l of i c e . Newspapers f a l l l i k e f l o w e r s . Turn to me, my Love. ^ l g l n f 1 : „ , v A«7 Reach out. V/e almost touch 5 X 1 1 , 1 1 l n t h e bed!7 but, swimmers p u l l e d apart by a r b i t r a r y t i d e s , are swept out on the n i g h t . Somewhere a hand w i l l f i n d t h a t d e l i c a c y of bone l o c k e d i n a g l a c i a l year. We l a b e l h i s t o r y now. F o s s i l s , our s m i l e s extend the f r o n t i e r s of the p a s t . Our k i s s e s breed new terms,. P o s s i b l y D i f f i c u l t Words: (Of course the poet may i n t e n d these words to convey much more than t h e i r simple meanings, or even i n t e n d something d i f f e r e n t from them.) shoals — shallow sandbanks;^mass of f i s h swimming a r b i t r a r y — a c c o r d i n g to no r u l e ; from mere whim or o p i n i o n d e l i c a c y of bone — s k e l e t o n s [ P a i r 19/20] THE ESTUARY (Non-Canadian) The wind has died, no motion now in the summer's sleepy breath. Silver the sea-grass, the shells erxl the driftwood, fixed i n the moon's vast crystal. Think: long after, when the walls of the small house have collapsed upon us, each alone, far gone the earth's Invasion the slow earth bedding and f i l l i n g the bone, this water w i l l s t i l l be crawling up the estuary, fingering i t s way among the channels, l i c k i n g the stones; and the floating shells, minute argosies under the giant moon, s t i l l shoreward glide among the mangroves on the creeping tide. The noise of gulls comes through the shining darkness over the dunes and the sea. Now the clouded moon is warm In her nest of l i g h t . The world's a shell where distant waves are murmuring of a time beyond this time. "Give me the ghost of your hand: unreal, unreal the dunes, the sea, the mangroves, and the moon's white l i g h t , unreal, beneath our naked feet, the sand." Possibly D i f f i c u l t Words: (Of course the poet may Intend these words to convey much more than their simple meanings, or even intend something different from them.) estuary -- tid a l mouth of a r i v e r minute — tiny argosies — large merchant ships mangroves -- shrubby tree growing i n swamp and estuary 242 B THE IEA MATCHING PROBLEM The recent, well-announced, IEA d i f f i c u l t y i n matching poems should not be thought an obstacle to t h i s study. The IEA team t r i e d to assemble, from d i f f e r e n t countries, a set of poems  so comparable that when national student-groups each responded to t h e i r own nation's poem ( i . e . each group to a d i f f e r e n t poem) response differences might be at t r i b u t e d s o l e l y to differences  between the student-groups. By contrast, t h i s study followed a procedure which the IEA experience recommended.^ I t assumed that the i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y matched poems would d i f f e r and had a l l students reading both poems. This study, then, depended upon nationa l differences between poems as r e f l e c t e d i n like-student responses to them. It might even o f f e r the best chance of fin d i n g , i f i t i s l a t e r r e p l i c a t e d i n the control country, the 11 comparable" or 2 "compatible" works sought by the IEA researchers. x Cf. Choppin, "Can L i t e r a r y Appreciation Be Measured Objectively?" pp. 241, 247; Purves, "IEA Lit e r a t u r e : F i n a l Report," Ch. II , pp. 5, 7. 2 Purves, "An Examination of the V a r i e t i e s of C r i t i c i s m , " p. 98. Cf. Early, "The IEA Li t e r a t u r e Study: Two Reviews (The Second Review)," p. 25 APPENDIX II THE TESTING BATTERY (Copies reduced i n size.) 244 A Introduction to Teachers From: Campbell Ross Doctoral Candidate, English Education, U.B.C. Ph. 2280476 (day or evening) Thank you for considering your class/es for this ex-periment. It centres upon response to Canadian.(including local) poetry. The student's main task is to freely respond to a poem pair which has been read to him or her. In return for your class's time (one hour) i n late March or early April, I would be happy to discuss follow-up work for the class. Also, my analysis of free-responses includes a computer sorting into, and printing out of, response elements under categories like "evaluation-enjoyment", "re-creation of the experience portrayed in t're literature", "discussion of form" and "transfer to familiar experiences". While maintaining students' anonymity (the print-out does not show names) these summaries would nrovide you with an exceedingly valuable diagnostic device. The hour is well enough spent in other ways—especially as students can later be informed of the purpose of the study and i t s results. It is imperative that students do not know anything of the study or be prepared i n any way—a slig h t s l i p i n this connection rendered useless the work done by several pilot study classes. If, by accident, the class does find out the experiment's concerns, I would rather be told and withdraw the group than discover the fact later (or even not discover i t ) . Even i f you decide not to allow your classes to participate, please do not 24-5 discuss the study. Whst follows need only concern teachers who are willing to have their elapses participate. Since the experimental work in schools through the ci t y w i l l cover about three weeks, I would be grateful i f no class discussion were held following class-testing and i f any student questions were dampened for that period—so that other classes, especially in your school, do not become aware of the questions and procedures. The atmosphere, in other words, should be low-key. After the three-week period there need be no r e s t r i c t i o n . As you w i l l see from the "Introduction to Students" form,I am attempting to establish a relaxed, non-examination atmosphere. The free-response techninue being used has greater v a l i d i t y and gathers more information in proportion as the students are free to say what they really f e e l about the poems. I am not looking for ripht answers, in my terms there are none. (Nor, for that matter, is your "competence" as their teacher i n any way at stake. The fact that only two classes respond to any one poem set should assure you of that. If you are concerned, however, you are welcome to consult further with me about the experimental proposal—perhaps you might wish to out of interest. Just phone.) 246 The experiment, then, needs no pre-introduction or preparation vis a vis the class. (It depends upon there being none). However I would be grateful for assistance from you on four points. I ask: (1) Whether your class has read much Canadian Literature (I prefer classes which have not). (2) For a class l i s t showing: (a) sex where name does not indicate that. (b) students "ho (whether out of hubit.' or for some special reason) are not likely to attend on the day of "testing" (See (3), below). (c) students who (to your knowledge) have not lived in B.C. during their secondary schcol years. (If there are a great many such students the class may have to be eliminated.) Don't ask the students i f you are unsure. I can find out later (through the questionnaire "Places You Have Lived". (3) For a morning timetable showing what class period (in late March or early April) i t would suit you best that I use or what periods I could choose from. (4) To indicate which, of a l i s t of 24 poems, your students (more than, say, two) are likely to have read. Sincerely, 247 Cross the poem thus ^ L ^ School, i f you t h i n k more than 1 or 2 i n the Teacher c l a s s know i t . C l a s s . . Poem # 1. 5. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. O r i g i n Can. T i t l e and F i r s t L i n e Poet and Anthology 2. N.Z. Can. N.Z. Can. 6. N.Z. Can. N.Z. Can. 10. N.Z. In the V a l l e y of Wenkchemna Ralph Gustafson, "Spunsilkengreen, I t hovered..." H i l l Country "White sky, mountains mount H i g h . . . " To Hold i n a Poem " I would take words i n Dudek, L o u i s , ed. Poetry of Our Time. James K. Baxter A.J.M. Smith, i n G i l l a n d e r s , C a r o l , ed. As c r i s p and as w h i t e . . . " Theme and Image, To An E x p a t r i a t e "Pine f o r the needles brown and warm..." Canoe T r i p "What of t h i s f a b u l o u s c o u n t r y . . . " Elements "I n the summer we rode i n the c l a y country...' Death " I ask you how can i t be thought..'. " F r o s t at Night " P i e r c e and c r a c k l e of s t a r s . . . " Lagoons, Hanlan's P o i n t "Mornings A.R.D. F a i r b u r n Douglas Le Pan, i n Dover, K. P h y l l i s , ed. P o e t r y : An Anthology f o r  High Schools. A.R.D. F a i r b u r n Margaret A v i s o n , i n Mandel, E l i , ed. E i g h t More Canadian Poets. Ruth D a l l a s I r v i n g Layton, i n Dudek, L o u i s , ed. Before the sun's l i q u i d . . . " Poetry of Our Time. The Anchorage " F i f t e e n or twenty f e e t below..." Pat W i l s o n 248 11. Can. P r a i r i e Bred "Caged by the small and f e r t i l e garden p l o t . . . " Ruth McDonald, i n Watters, R e g i n a l d Eyre, ed. B r i t i s h Columbia; A Ce n t e n n i a l A n t h o lO F T T . 12. N.Z. Canterbury "On t h i s great p l a i n the eye..." B a s i l Dowling 13. B.C. Moondance "moonrise moon mossdance..." 14. N.Z. H i l l Country "White sky, mountains mount High..." 15. B.C. Booming Grounds, February "Under the b a f f l i n g of snow cover Logs r e e l i n t o darkness.-16. N.Z. A View of Rangitoto "Harshness of gorse darkens the y e l l o w c l i f f - e d g e . . . " Dana P r a s e r , i n West Coast Review James K. Ba x t e r Charles L i l l a r d , i n Yates, J . Michael,ed. Contemporary P o e t r y of  S r i 11sh'Coiumbia. Charles Brasch 17. B.C. 18. N.Z. Noon: Vancouver Harbour " s h e l l f i s h bubble p a n t i n g sea-worms bake..." B r i t i s h Columbia: A Ce n t e n n i a l Anthology E a r l Dawe, i n Watters, R. E., ed. Es tuary "A Ghost the t i d e moves i n and out..." Denis Glover 19. B.C. Night Poem, Vancouver I s l a n d Robin S k e l t o n , "The wind's i n the west t o n i g h t . . . " 20. N.Z. The Estuary "The Wind has d i e d , no motion now..." 21, B.C. The Stream "On the f l a t bulk of the mountain..." 22. N.Z. Arawata B i l l : The Scene "Mountains nuzzle mountains..." i n Yates, J. M i c h a e l , ed. Contemporary Poetry of  B r i t i s h Columbia. A.R.D. F a i r b u r n Jay Hodgson, i n Yates, J. M i c h a e l , ed. Contemporary Poe t r y of  B r i t i s h Columbia. Denis Glover 24-9 23. B.C. The Sleeping Beauty Isabel Ecclestone Mackay, "So has she l a i n for i n Watters, R. E., ed. centuries unguessed..." British Columbia, A Centennial Antholo,%-. 24. N.Z. A View of Rangitoto Charles Brasch "Finally, holding a l l eyes, the long-limbed mountain i i 250 B Student No.... Introduction to Students I am making a large-scale doctoral study which may lead to.changes in the literature school^students read in future. The study depends entirely on your help. Thank you for p a r t i c i -pating. This is what I w i l l ask you to do: (1) Write down your reaction to two poems; (2) Give your opinions on several.issues I raise. Express exactly what you re a l l y f e e l in your responses to the poems and to the questions. In both cases i t is your personal opinion that is important. There are no "test" questions to see how well you have "understood" the poems; there are no "right" answers to mark by. You w i l l be anonymous; do not write your name on your paper?. The numbers are only to help divide the class equally and to enable me to interview ( i f she/he agrees) any student who has said something of particular importance for my work. No one else w i l l ever know what you, personally, have said on these forms. If you have any questions during the study write them on the back of this sheet i f they can wait; raise your hand i f they can't. Please do not just c a l l them out—they may influence others' responses. I w i l l now arrange the class into two parts and hand out the f i r s t set of forms. The seating works this way: 251 If you are given an odd number go to your l e f t of me. If you are given an even number go to your right. (See placards on the front wall.) When you are seated I w i l l hand out the experimental forms. When you receive your form simply wait. Do not open the booklet. When a l l are ready we w i l l begin. Student No. Booklet I . N.B. Do not open u n t i l instructed to do so. In this booklet are two poems which w i l l be read to you by two different readers (the experiment is not about the readers; there are two merely to give you variety). After the readings you should re-read the poems yourself and "absorb" them before talking about them. The booklet contains a sheet on which to write what you f e e l and think about the poems. There is no hurry. Booklet I contain? the main part of this study: Booklet II r i l l not take many minutes to complet and w i l l not be handed out u n t i l later in the period. At t h i s point the poem'pairs were placed (For poems, see above pp. 229-241.) FREE RESPOHSK Student No. ... Respond freely. Say what the poems do to you --what you feel and think about them or what things they surest to you. What you say may relate to one poem or both poems; that's up to you (though mike It clear which one you are talking about at any time). Re-read the poems as often as you li k e . Take up to 20 minutes, If you vish, to finish this section. (Carry on over to ^nck of t h l r sheet If you - i r h . ) Student No. Booklet II Work through the question forms i n this booklet one page at a time. Don't go forward u n t i l each page is complete. 256 G Student No. ... How TvTuch Do You L i k e The Poems? 1. I would l i k e t o know how you p e r s o n a l l y would compare t h i s poem t o other t>oems you u s u a l l y read i n c l a s s . I f you t h i n k i t i s one of the best such poems, r a t e i t t3. I f you t h i n k i t i s one of the worst such poems, r a t e i t -3» ( a ) . " C i r c l e the number of the r a t i n g you would give t h i s poem. one of f a i r l y f a i r l y one of the best good good poor poor the worst 3 2 1 -1 -2 -3 (b) C i r c l e the number of the r a t i n g you would give t h i s poem. one of f a i r l y f a i r l y one of the best good good poor poor the worst 3 2 1 -1 -2 -3 Which Poem Would You P r e f e r t o Di s c u s s 2. Which of these two poems "?ould you p r e f e r t o d i s c u s s w i t h your f r i e n d s ( i e / not n e c e s s a r i l y w i t h an a d u l t p r e s e n t ) ? Why? H Student No. What Do You Kno" of These Poems? t? II (a) Have you seen or heard this poem before tcday? Yes/No (b) Where (nation or region) do you think this poem was wltten? (c) 1 Do you know for sure? Yes/No Bow do you know? 11 Are you guessine? Yes/No What makes you guess that place? (d) 1 Did you know (where the poem was written) before today? Yes/No 11 Did you find out durlnp poem readings and when you -ere "Titing your free response? Yes/No How did you find out? i i i Did you think of the place Just no-? Ye«/No (a) Have you seen or heard ti is poem before today? Yes/No (b) Where (nation or region) do you think this poem was written? (c) 1 Do you know for sure? Yes/No Hew do you know? 11 Are you guessing? Yes/No What makes you guess that place? (d) 1 Did you ' T I C - (-"here the roen ras written) before today? Yes/No l i Did you find out ^ u r l rr poem readlnr? and when you were writing your free response? Yes/No How did you find out? i l l Did you think of the place Just nov.-? Yes/No 258 I Student No. ... Places You Have Lived Give approximate dates in the brackets Where have you l i v e d besides the Vancouver area? • (1) Elsewhere in B.C. (where?) ( ) (2) Other Canadian Provinces or Major C i t i e s (3) Other Countries or Areas or States ( ) HUNCHES (1) Do you thi n k you know what t h i s study i s about? YES/NO (2) I f you have an idea, what i s i t ? (3) At what stage did you begin to have that idea? Before today? YES/NO.., During today's experiment? YES/NO.., At what stage today? 2 5 9 K Your Opinions Circle the number of the rating that f i t s your ODinlon best. 1. Ho™ iruch dnadian literature (novels, nlays, stories or poem?) have yot: read on ynur o^ 'n (compared with your other reading)? almost a l l a lot a l i t t l e not much no Canadian Canadian at a l l 5 * 3 2 1 2. How much time do you think has been given to reading or studying Canadian literature during your secondary school years? almost all a lot a l i t t l e not much no time time at a l l 5 * 3 2 1 3 . How much time would you like to have for studying Canadian literature in literature classes? almost a l l a lot a l i t t l e not much no time . at a l l 5 * ? 2 1 4. HOT highly dc you think teachers and professors regard Canadian literature? They think Canadian literature i s : extremely • f a i r l y f a i r l y very-good good good poor poor poor 3 2 1 - 1 - 2 - 3 5. How highly do you think other adults regard Canadian literature? They think Canadian literature i s : extrenely f a i r l y f a i r l y very good good good poor poor poor 3 2 1 - 1 - 2 6. If y>u have read n^y C-radian l i t e r a t u r e , ho?' much did you l i k e i t co-^srod w«th ot. ver 1 t t e r s t u r e y-.u hive read. I think Canadian l i t e r a t u r e i s : extremely f a i r l y f a i r l y very good pood rood poor poor poor 3 2 1 -1 -2 -3 Put up your hand when you have f i n i s h e d . Thank you very much. APPENDIX III THE EXPERIMENTAL CHRONOLOGY 261 THE EXPERIMENTAL CHRONOLOGY I Classroom Preparation: 1. Divide room by separating desks. 2. Lay out "Introduction to Students" on desks. 3. Stack forms (Booklet I, Booklet II, Poem Pairs) under odd and even numbers in alphabetical (class) l i s t s . 4. Place placards on wal l . 5. Set up (a) tape recorder (t>) 2 cassettes. 6. Check pronunciation of names. II The Experimental Period: (Mins.) 00 1. Class entry. 03 2. Class set t led. 3. Introduction to students, Personal! C "My name i s Campbell Ross. I study at TJ.B.C. n . • . . 4. Introduction to students, Experimental I read from form "Introduction to Students." 04 5. Check "Awareness" I ask i f any students know of this study: "Please do not answer the following question d i rec t ly . Just raise your hand i f appropriate. Have any of you spoken about this study to students who have participated in i t? Do you know what i t is about?" I place those students who do know into the GK condition, i f they are not already there, by a l lo t ing them an even number on the class 11st--swapped with the even number nearest to them on the l i s t . 262 05 6. Assign numbers and seating: "I have divided the class evenly using the class l i s t . I would l ike to seat each d iv is ion as a group for possible later work. I w i l l read out the names of a l l people with odd numbers (cards are clipped to these booklets). When I have f inished the l i s t , pick up your papers from me then go to the l e f t of the room. People whose names are not read out go to the r ight . I w i l l hand your papers to you where you are seated." 07 7. I read the odd #s then hand out Booklet I to them. 10 8. I hand out Booklet I to even numbers. 12 9. Class set t led. 10.Poem readings. I play according to pre-set order. 19 11.Readings f in ished. IS.Students encouraged to ref lect before writ ing: "Please take up to f ive minutes to re-read and ref lect upon the poems before wri t ing." 13.Discourage ta lk ing: "Please do not ta lk. It is your personal response that interests me." 24 14.Five minutes elapsed; reminder to respond in writ ing: "Those who have not yet started writing down the i r thoughts should begin to soon." 15.Arrange Booklet II in seating order to f a c i l i t a t e handing out. 16.Individuals restless? If so, I hand them Booklet II i n advance. 39 17.Written response complete. 18.Check poem references: I read from the back of the Free Response form: "Please check that i t is always clear which poem you are referr ing to ." 263 40 19.Hand out Booklet II. I hand out booklets by student seating order (lumbers arranged under 15 above): "I w i l l hand out Booklet II. Move through It one page at a time. Begin It as soon as you have read the instruction sheet on i ts f ront . I w i l l pick up Booklet I when I have handed these out." 20. Pick up Booklet I, leaving poems. 21. Arrange to interview "Aware" Students (see Step 5). 50 22.Booklet II complete, student raises his hand, 25.Pick up Booklet II and Poems. I do this as each student f in ishes . 24.Interview "Aware" students i f not already done (see Step 21). APPENDIX IV SOME RESPONSES 265 A SOME CODED FREE-RESPONSE PROTOCOLS The reading of poem #1 was easier to read £ because of the rhymes added throughout. The #2 poem had 10 an i n t e r e s t i n g sentence structure which could be read i n 10 7 such a way that made me f e e l more involved. #1 poem 2, seemed easier to understand o v e r a l l . The second poem % also seems to take me into a deeper space of thinking and i t takes more to understand the ideas behind i t . I t 7 also has a f e e l i n g of more movement by the type of action words used (example—" a few drops melting now from here ... now...") Overall I found #2 the most enjoyable because / there was a challenge beyond the face words. % o « e t « o e o o « « t t o a o « i D » « « a « * * « a * 1st Poem: Z 1° 2nd Poem: / 7 % lo Poem #2 gives me more of a picture of a scene than Poem #1 does. I think Poem #1 i s not clear, i t doesn't get the message accross. With Poem #2 I f e e l l i k e I'm at a stream. I f e e l that poem #1 i s too descriptive, i t has not r e a l meaning to me. Poem #2 i s also easier to read. -2 7 -7-2 2 1st Poem: - 2 -7 - ? 2 n d Poem: 2- l& 7 I l i k e d both poems, but I l i k e d the f i r s t poem better. I can r e a l l y f e e l what the author must f e e l . The poem i s not so hard to understand. It can r e a l l y mean something to me. How he describes d i f f e r e n t things, l i k e "the road before us trembling i n the heat" i s r e a l l y good. He makes i t easy to v i s u a l i z e what he means without having hidden meanings. I r e a l l y thought the poem was well written. I t r e a l l y had a meaning. The second poem was not as good. I t had good ideas and feelings i n i t too, but I didn't l i k e the descriptions he used. I don't l i k e how he sees the land. He looks at the land i n a completely d i f f e r e n t way that I do, "The flames of sunset" just doens't seem b e a u t i f u l l i k e a sunset i s . And the l a s t two l i n e s don't describe land l i k e i t i s . He makes the land seem ugly with no r e a l beauty anywhere. Both poems were pretty good though. 1st Poem: 1 1 C ~7 $ 1 0 e e • a t • 2 n d Poem: -/ S -7 The f i r s t poem a f f e c t s me i n a neat way. I t seems to d i s c r i b e the country so b e a u t i f u l l y . I can picture trees, lakes and a l l kind of wilderness. I t ' s as though I was standing on a mountain looking down. When I read i t I f e l t l i k e I was i n an imaginary world, f a r removed from everyone. I didn't l i k e the way the second tape read i t , the voice seemed so d u l l , because t h i s poem i s so f u l l of mystery and energy. The second poem i s nice but i t doesn't grab me the way the f i r s t one does. I think because of the changing of seasons, I don't l i k e i t when I read about sum-mer and then go onto winter, i t ' s depressing f o r me. I t ' s a very d i s c r i p t i v e poem but I can't picture any of i t i n my mind l i k e they way I could with the f i r s t one. I think the reasons I prefure the f i r s t poem i s because I can use my own imagination and get a r e a l l y clear p i cture. With the second poem everything, l i k e the scenery i s put r i g h t before me, I don't have to reach f o r i t . I also prefure the f i r s t poem because I happen to love trees and mountains, lakes etc. and I paint them a l l the time. So I guess when reading t h i s poem I am just painting another picture,' because i t r e a l l y turns me on. o a a a e o a a a « a a a a « a a a a a a a a « a a a a a 1st Poem: I 6 7 // 2nd Poem: -C -7 -S The f i r s t that I respond to when read a poem to i s the voice. The f i r s t man way of reading and voi c i n g the poem sound harsh and agitated to me ear. I seemed to me as i f he want to arouse some hidden response from me as a person and came up blank. I f e l t nothing. However when the seconded man came onto the tape with h i s low, soft' spoken voice I r i g h t away picked the poem up. This time I enjoyed the easy flowing rhythm of the two unknown (or one) authors. Comments on the Scene: The f i r s t stanza i n t r o -duces the scene that the author talks about and to me i t reminds me of our mountains the morning a f t e r a super hot day. I can a c t u a l l y v i s u a l i z e the pale morning f o g - l i k e cloud that usually hangs about u n t i l the noon sun burns i t of f . That's just how I f e e l a f t e r I had a p a r t i c u l a r "downer" of a day when the world seems a l l wet and miser-able. The next stanza seems to emphasize t h i s f e e l i n g . As i n the l i n e "the r i v e r s swell and twist" that how everything seems to grow. Everything one says or does i s wrong. The t h i r d and fourth stanza just continues to por-tray how things go from bad to worse. The l a s t stanza seems to say that when things seem extremely bad something happens to make i s a l l r i g h t again. Comments on The Stream: This poem somehow talks to me about people being born, l i v i n g , and dieing„ The f i r s t stanza has "on the edge of the cirque wall we formed" and that's just how we come about growing a few c e l l s at a time. Then we are born f u l l of eagerness to le a r n and l i v e and each day as we l i v e we gather knowledge "talus blocks to c o l l e c t i n pools, growing". The fo r t h stanza talks to me about the road of l i f e u n t i l we die and then are spread with depris on the sea f l o o r having only l e f t the memories behind. 1st Poem: 7 9 10 II 0 s 2nd Poem: t 10 II Poem 1--I l i k e d the poem. The poem kind of gives me a good f e e l i n g of beauty, cleanness and peacefulness. It's l i k e being alone away from c i t y people and being i n the wilderness up i n the mountains. I t creates a picture i n my mind of summer, autumn, winter, and spring showing the beauty of each season and i n the back of my mind knowing that many people never get a chance to see t h i s type of beauty. Poem 2--I also l i k e d t h i s poem as well as Poem 1. I t seems to t e l l about earth's environment. Explaining about the sun's warmth and colour of gold and red, the sea having many islands, the g l a c i e r s as giants which formed lakes & r i v e r s , the wilderness of the pinelands i n an uninhabited northern region, the clouds and how you can v i s i o n imag-nery figures, and with a l l these things l i f e began. 1st Poem: / 6 7 2nd Poem: / # I t . 7 ? I seem to be able to understand the f i r s t poem better. I think i t i s the s t y l e i n which i t i s written. It gives me a clearer picture than poem number two. The f i r s t poem makes me•feel l i k e I'm looking over a large mountain range, I can r e l a t e better to i t . The f i r s t reader, I thought, had an accent; I love accents and so I enjoyed h i s version of the poem. The second reader didn't seem to put as much enthusiasm into h i s poem. 1st Poem: 2 t 7 /o 2nd Poem: 271 B SIGNIFICANT ADJECTIVALS (The poems separated by at l e a s t 3 negatives) Poem Pair: 1 "In the Valley of Wenkchemna"/ 2 " H i l l Country' Denied Knowledge Canadian New Zealand inexperienced, young, a l i v e disturbing freedom f e e l r e a l l y good s o f t , mellow, relaxing vastness, unending b e a u t i f u l experience, l u s t , desire, depth, dry, warmth disturbing, bleak, depressing died, never to be free again nothing b e a u t i f u l , things wiped out soft , mellow, rela x i n g vastness, unending cold, lonely/older, not nearly so b e a u t i f u l [mixed] 0 Given Knowledge Canadian New Zealand l i f e , freedom, love, happiness summer, alone [+] summer, l i g h t e r easy, a l i v e , free happy, responsive, f l u s h , fresh freedom, carelessness warm, happy, glad, content, peaceful aloneness, beauty, peacefulness joyful? death, sad depression barren, empty morbid suspen s e / l i f l e s s , dead robbed cold and undecided, dry, hot, s t u f f y freedom, carelessness unsettles,/horrible, t r i v i a l aloneness, beauty, peace-fulness a l i v e sad 272 Poem Pair: 3 "To Hold i n a Poem"/ 4 "To An Expatriate" Denied Knowledge Canadian New Zealand honesty sad, s t a r t l e d straightforward fresh, clean, b e a u t i f u l something b e a u t i f u l b e a u t i f u l pretty, b e a u t i f u l b e a u t i f u l more free t i n g l i n g joy, e v i l b e a u t i f u l [but doubt?] beauty hate mysterious warm/cold cold and dead b e a u t i f u l bad points [though shown i n good l i g h t ] b e a u t i f u l [ l e s s free] rugged, b e a u t i f u l sadly, happiness homesickness Given Knowledge Canadian New Zealand freedom happy (and f e e l , taste, small) relaxing, free beauty, joys, freedom fresh, b e a u t i f u l beauty free warm, happy happiness, beauty color and s p i r i t s o f t , l i g h t mellow, easiness, an easy flowing f e e l i n g b e a u t i f u l peace, bright, sweet smelling 0 free, easy-going f o r l o r n , sad relaxing, free beauty, joys, freedom b e a u t i f u l , bad, sad beauty, rough night, dark, sad more co l o u r f u l sad, lonely not very c o l o u r f u l violence, peace beauty, harshness b e a u t i f u l peace, summer, homesickness 273 Poem P a i r : 9 "Lagoons, Hanlans' P o i n t / 10 "The Anchorage" Denied Knowledge Canadian beauty-beauty, peace, mysterious (+) p e a c e f u l , q u i e t r e l a x i n g , f a n t a s t i c , b e a u t i -f u l l y p e a c e f u l , t r a n q u i l , mystery e e r i e b e a u t i f u l , mysterious p e a c e f u l , mystery s t i l l r e l a x i n g , freedom, t r a n q u i l i t y p eacefulness, calm, s t i l l n e s s , remote f e e l i n g , mysterious peace, q u i e t s t i l l n e s s , not b e a u t i f u l peace, q u i e t T New Zealand beauty beauty, peace, l o n e l y s i l e n c e (bothered) [ l e s s p e a c e f u l ] p e a c e f u l , t r a n q u i l , mystery strange s t i l l r e l a x i n g , freedom, t r a n q u i l i t y peacefulness, calm, s t i l l n e s s , remote f e e l i n g peace q u i e t s t i l l , t r a n q u i l , l o n e l i n e s s q u i e t , beauty, c o o l , t r o p i c a l peace, q u i e t m Given Knowledge New Zealand Canadian sooth i n g , calm, p e a c e f u l , alone p e a c e f u l , t r a n q u i l , g l o r i o u s b e a u t i f u l , adventure p e a c e f u l , wakening c o l o r f u l , excitement q u i e t , s o f t r e l a x i n g peacefulness s e r e n i t y , beauty q u i e t , s o f t , sometimes rough soothing, calm, p e a c e f u l s o l i t u d e q u iet? [ e x p e c t i n g rough water] l a t e r , darker s t i l l , s i l e n t — deadly q u i e t , s o f t r e l a x i n g peacefulness s e r e n i t y , beauty q u i e t , s o f t , alone, l o n e l y 0 1 274 Poem P a i r : 11 " P r a i r i e Bred"/ 12 "Canterbury" Denied Knowledge Canadian New Zealand more emotional c o l o u r f u l sadness p r e t t y [ b r i g h t n e s s , dreams] powerful, unhappy childhood b e a u t i f u l , t o the very f u l l e s t sad a i r , emptiness almost impassionate d u l l , doesn't have much colo u r to i t [sadness] emptiness, l o n e l i n e s s dead, l i f e l e s s , emptiness beauty, happiness, hopes, dreams l a c k of hope, p e a c e f u l n o i s e , s a t i s f a c t i o n b e a u t i f u l c o l d f e e l i n g , emptiness Given Knowledge Canadian New Zealand b e a u t i f u l l y , b e a u t i f u l p r i s o n , p r a i s e freedom, timelessness vastness, emptiness, e v i l -ness, r e a l l y enjoyed l o n e l y , deserted p e a c e f u l _love of la n d ] " n o s t a l g i a ] p e a c e f u l , b e a u t i f u l sad closed i n beauty, p r a i s i n g freedom, t i m e l e s s n e s s , t r u t h vastness, emptiness l o n e l y , deserted, sad pe a c e f u l d e s o l a t e , i s o l a t i o n l o n e l i n e s s , l o s t barren, desolate b e a u t i f u l u g l y b e a u t i f u l sad vast freedom graced, p e a c e f u l , mysterious 2 4 2 7 5 Poem Pair: 1 5 "Booming Grounds, February"/ 1 6 " A View of Rangitoto" Denied Knowledge Canadian New Zealand cold, harsh, un i n v i t i n g , sad,-depressed sad, lonely l o n e l i n e s s , distance e v i l b e a u t i f u l death, sad, remorse s i l e n t dismal, dreary lonel i n e s s , peace, t r a n q u i l i t y cold, lonely, dark, forbidding ( i s o l a t i o n , peacefulness., loneliness) loneliness beauty, happy, warm, a l i v e powerful, frightening, d i g n i t y calm, quiet, free calm lonel i n e s s , sadness cosy, gentle ( i s o l a t i o n , peaceful, alone) happiness 0 Given Knowledge Canadian New Zealand b e a u t i f u l ended, depressed cold, sad, ugliness lonely eerieness, desolate, secludedness quiet, s t i l l , untouched, freedom gloomy, dark, empty, death v i v i d , quietness [noise] loneliness cold, heartless eery, cold, alone (lonely, harsh, natural) b e a u t i f u l blasted r e s t l e s s , searching l i g h t death, dark, lonely magical freedom, beauty, clash l i f e , beauty, happiness eerie, sad, night b e a u t i f u l , peaceful smooth, carefree, warm (lonely, harsh, natural) beauty 5 3 276 Poem P a i r : 17 "Noon"/ 18 "Estuary Denied Knowledge Canadian (mystery, l o n e l i n e s s ) (mystery, l o n e l i n e s s ) carefree sleepy, r e l a x e d sad slow-moving, n e v e r - h u r r i e d heat, d i s c o m f o r t , l a z y , tense, sadness s t i l l , d e s o l a t e , motionless s i l e n t ( peacefulness, mystery, disturbance) calmness, peace, l i f e l e s s a l l t h i n g s are as they are meant to be trapped b r i g h t , l i g h t h e a r t e d (peaceful) (sadden) New Zealand (mystery, l o n e l i n e s s ) (mystery, l o n e l i n e s s ) l o n e l y , time drags on sleepy, contaminated, rank dead depressed, d u l l , s l u g g i s h c o o l e r , "edgy t r a n q u i l i t y " , uneasiness (peacefulness, mystery, disturbance) e t r n i t y , more r e l a x e d , -•uncertainty f r e e depressing, dismal, dark (peaceful) (sadden) T Given Knowledge Canadian p e a c e f u l , b e a u t i f u l r e s t f u l , p r e t t y slow-moving, l a z y q u i e t , except l i f e p e a c e f u l q u i e t , easy (pleasant) (serene) p e a c e f u l , l i g h t e r p e a c e f u l , l e s s bothering New Zealand peace, s e r e n i t y p r e t t y , wish I was on the boat q u i e t , rude and t r a m p l i n g beauty (pleasant) (serene) freedom/trapped p e a c e f u l , c l a s h q u i e t l e s s p e a c e f u l 0 2?7 Poem P a i r : 23 "The Slee p i n g Beauty"/ 24 "A View of Rangitoto" Denied Knowledge Canadian New Zealand b e a u t i f u l powerful, m a j e s t i c p o s i t i v e , admiring dramatic, b a s i c young, l i v i n g agelessness, s o l i d a r i t y , more i n s p i r a t i o n p e a c e f u l , b e a u t i f u l untouched beauty, s t r o n g serene, beauty t r a n q u i l mood (mystery) pleasant (gloomy) calm and c o l d vastness defeat f u t i l e , s h ort [ l e s s b a s i c ] o l d , dying [ l e s s i n s p i r a t i o n ] s t r o n g , powerful, c o l d , u g l y anger, o l d , worn powerful — k i l l i n g our-s e l v e s mystery (gloomy) g r a c e f u l and p e a c e f u l G i v e n Knowledge New Z e a l a n d Canadian b e a u t i f u l easy, comfortable q u i e t , clean, c r i s p (sad) power, dormant s t r e n g t h (calm, powerless) b e a u t i f u l [ f e e l ] i n s i g n i f i c a n t e e r i e , creepy darkness, death s o f t , g e n t l e , p e a c e f u l , subdued, wondering c o l d and stro n g s o f t , l i g h t l i v i n g , elegant, s i l e n t m a j e s t i c , grace, beauty • o p t i m i s t i c l o s t d i g n i t y , l o s i n g a l l i t s beauty e r u p t i o n , destroyed (sad) no power or l o r d l i n e s s , depressing (calm, powerless), [not b e a u t i f u l ] , ugly [ f e e l l i k e ] l i t t l e k i d or b l i n d weird content, s t a b l e c o l d , rugged dead p e s s i m i s t i c 

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.831.1-0055681/manifest

Comment

Related Items