UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of relationships among instructional style (open vs. non-open), architectural design (open space… Lukasevich, Ann 1976

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A2 L85.pdf [ 11.81MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055683.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055683-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055683-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055683-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055683-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055683-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055683-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055683-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055683.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS AMONG INSTRUCTIONAL STYLE (OPEN VS. NON-OPEN), ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (OPEN SPACE VS. NON-OPEN SPACE) AND MEASURES OF SELF CONCEPT AND READING AND MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT OF THIRD GRADE CHILDREN  by  ANN LUKASEVICH B.A. Dip. C D . M.Ed.  U n i v e r s i t y of Windsor, U n i v e r s i t y of London, England, Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,  1964 1968 1971  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION  i n the FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard  THE  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SEPTEMBER 1976 (c) Ann L u k a s e v i c h , 1976  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  an advanced degree at the L i b r a r y s h a l l I  f u r t h e r agree  for  the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  make i t  this  thesis  Elementary  2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  e  It  is understood that  f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h  t  for  the requirements f o r  Columbia,  I agree  r e f e r e n c e and  for e x t e n s i v e copying o f  permission.  Department of  a  freely available  that permission  representatives.  written  D  fulfilment of  this  that  study. thesis  s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head o f my Department or  by h i s of  in p a r t i a l  September  1976  Education Columbia  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  not be allowed without my  i i i ABSTRACT  The  purpose  of this  relationship  between  and  cognitive  selected  study  was  instructional  to investigate the style,  and a f f e c t i v e  architectural  outcomes  design,  of third  grade  children. A more  total  years  by  who  i n an i n s t r u c t i o n a l  t h e DISC  examined  subjects  had been  i n this  program  teacher  questionnaire  study.  This  t o program  and f a c i l i t y ,  groupings  allowing  2X2 d e s i g n  of  e f f e c t s and i n t e r a c t i o n  achievement  used and  were  four  subtests  the measures Self-Concept  these  same  variables these  factors  the subjects, were  used  the Canadian  measure Economic status.  Index  were  three  as c o v a r i a t e s  used  sub-  to investigate  of  on  achievement  of Basic  nine  measures  S k i l l s ,  subtests  of the  individual status,  of  difference  and sex -  studied.  t h e same  of intelligence,  were  were  subjects  i n four  Tests  classi-  I n addition, the interaction  f o rpossible  Cognitive  of  and f a c i l i t y  socio-economic  was  to adjust  used  be  space  o r nonopen  The measures  and t h e three  intelligence,  order  variables for  of self-concept  same m e a s u r e s  In among  school -  o f program  of the Canadian  Inventory.  could  as open  resulted  f o r two o r  o r open  t o be u t i l i z e d  and self-concept.  Sears  on  a  which  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  according  main  taught  i n either self-contained classrooms  classrooms fied  o f 321  pre-existing differences  individual i n the data  A b i l i t i e s  and scores  Test  were  difference analysis. used  f o rBlishen's  as t h e measure  of  Scores  as t h e  Socio-  socio-economic  iv Thirteen performed and with  to  five  test  f a c i l i t y  of  groups  were  tested, to  studied.  following  results:  1 . That be  type  two  pertaining  of  taught  School  Subjects,  programs  of  five  the  of  of  of  the  space  and  between  program  the  appeared  achieved  to  outcomes  did  show  classrooms  children  the  thirteen  that had  a  self-concept i n relation  that  null  analyses  showed  cognitive  results  the  level  and  seven  effects,  findings  type  of  other  taught  signito  by  significantly  better  i n  Comprehension.  children  Mathematics classrooms  scored  Concepts by  f o r the  better  scores  produced  when  variables,  Virtues,  contained  significantly  traditional  Social  given  and  main  program  each  total  .05  the  test  i n open  to  at  and of  A  were  between  with  results  these  favourable  traditional  That  most  However,  more  That  case  f a c i l i t y  cantly  Reading  The  summary,  unrelated to  children  3.  differences.  differences  In  differences  interaction  interaction.  examined.  2.  their  studied i n the  variables  regression analyses  significant and  significant  being  stepwise  individual  pertaining  revealed  f o r  groups,  sources  hypotheses  separate  open  than  space  Convergent  traditional  significantly  i n  teaching  programs  classrooms,  open  taught  whereas better  classrooms.  higher  i n  self-contained methods. Mental  produced  scores  and  significantly  programs nonopen  A b i l i t y  given  self-  programs than  open  programs  V  Based limited the  by  upon  the restrictions  following 1.  Higher  achievement  gained  when  achievement  gained  when  by  mathematics  a  may  be  conventional  classrooms  or  Pupil  self-concept i n relation  enhanced  when  open  B e t t e r Convergent Virtues  may  an  style  open  be  self-contained by  given  A b i l i t y when  classrooms,  open  space  be  conventional  to School  are taught  r a t h e r than  a traditional  a  and b e t t e r  children  and when  space  Social  are taught style  children  rather than  classrooms.  may  classrooms.  a traditional  style  Subjects  i n open  self-contained  Mental  enhanced  by  may  classrooms.  children  rather than  Concepts  i s taught  i n self-contained  style  suggested:  i n Mathematics  style  taught  procedures,  Comprehension  i s taught  and  classrooms.  classrooms it.  i n Reading  study,  and the  are  self-contained  Higher  be  of this  of the design  reading  i n either  space  3.  evidence  educational implications  style  2.  the empirical  an  by  given are open  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  The the  writer  following  during  Dr.  D.  Gose,  their  computer ing  program;  Vancouver,  have Dr.  Berkeley,  Summers, made  D r . D.  f o rt h e i r  throughout  Dr. Peter  without  whose  D r . W.  suggestions  A. G r a y I I I ,  Milburn,  counsel,  the course  Conry,  Edwards  s u p e r v i s o r ,f o r  and h e l p f u l  D r . E.  support,  and  E.  i n setting  f o rh i s h e l p  Allison up t h e  i n administer  and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s from  Burnaby,  Coquitlam,  cooperation  this  B.  o f the study.  a n d D r . D.  a s s i s t a n c e and advice  Surrey  a n d New  dissertation  impossible.  f o rt h e time  encouragement  he  spent  examining  Gee, f o r h e r help I would during  especially  support,  and thesis  J . U. M i c h a e l i s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y  Finally,  and a s s i s t a n c e  culminating with the  committee,  and t h e teachers  been  Sharron  would  thesis  D e l t a , Richmond,  Westminister, would  advisor  S o o L e e , D r . R.  valuable  the tests;  study  Dr. I . Housego,  suggestions Seong  encouragement  encouragement,  o f my  a n d D r . E . G.  Dr.  my  patience,  members  h e r sincere gratitude to  dissertation.  E. A l l i s o n ,  helpful  for  f o rt h e i r  F. G r a y ,  guidance,  t o express  o f academic  of this R.  The Dr.  people  the years  completion  his  wishes  and help  like  like  the writing  through  California,  the dissertation.  i n typ'ing t h e o r i g i n a l  t o thank  t o thank  o f  my  my  of this  family f o r their dissertation.  father f o r his  the years  draft.  o f academic  I  constant study  and i n  v i i the  writing  was  greatly  of  this  dissertation.  appreciated.  His  constant  encouragement  v i i i TABLE  OP  CONTENTS Page  LIST  OF  TABLES  LIST  OF  FIGURES  x . x i i i  Chapter I..  N A T U R E AND  BACKGROUND OF  THE  STUDY  Introduction Emergence o f Open Space S c h o o l s Emergence o f Open E d u c a t i o n . . . . . . Need f o r t h e Present Study Lack of Adequate Research The P r o b l e m Specific Questions H y p o t h e s e s To Be T e s t e d . . . . D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms Used  II.  REVIEW  OF  RELATED  RESEARCH  Introduction. R e s e a r c h on Open E d u c a t i o n Open E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h i n G r e a t B r i t a i n . . Open E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h i n Canada"and the United States S t u d i e s o f C o g n i t i v e Outcomes S t u d i e s o f A f f e c t i v e Outcomes R e s e a r c h on Open Space S c h o o l s Open Space R e s e a r c h i n Canada and the United S t a t e s . . . . R e s e a r c h on C o g n i t i v e Outcomes i n Open Space Classrooms S t u d i e s w h i c h G e n e r a l l y Show Non-Significant Findings Studies with Significant Findings F a v o u r i n g Open Space C l a s s r o o m s Studies with Significant Findings Favouring Traditonal Classrooms Research on Noncognitive Outcomes i n Open S p a c e Classrooms-..-. S t u d i e s w h i c h G e n e r a l l y Show Non-Significant Findings. Studies with Significant Findings F a v o u r i n g Open Space C l a s s r o o m s Studies with Significant Findings Favouring Traditional Classrooms G e n e r a l Summary  1 1 3 6 11 11 1li Ill15 17  19 19 19 20 -k 2li 26 32 32 33 3k Il2 I4.8. 53 5k 60 66 68  i x TABLE  OP  CONTENTS  -Chapter III.  Page DESIGN  AND  75  PROCEDURE  .,  75 78 78 79 80 83 83 88 93 93 97 99 100 101 106  DATA  1 08  t o Hypotheses  1 08 111 113 113 117  Overview The P r o b l e m The G e n e r a l P r o b l e m Specific Questions P i l o t Study S e l e c t i o n o f the Sample Selection of the Teachers Selection of the Students C o l l e c t i o n o f Data Instruments Used Sequence Followed .Experimental Procedures Design of the Analysis S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures Limitations of the Study  IV.  PRESENTATION  AND  ANALYSIS  I n t r o d u c t o r y Remarks Method o f Analysis.: Results of Analysis Descriptive Data Findings i n Relation  V.  SUMMARY,  CONCLUSIONS,  AND  OF  THE  Tested.  -Summary o f P r o c e d u r e s a n d F i n d i n g s The P r o b l e m Design of the Experiment Summary o f F i n d i n g s -Conclusions D i s c u s s i o n and E d u c a t i o n a l I m p l i c a t i o n s Suggestions f o r Further Research  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Appendixes  129  IMPLICATIONS  •  129 129. 130 131 133 136 138  1 ill  155  X LIST  OF  TABLES  TABLE I  II  III  PAGE MEANS AND STANDARD D E V I A T I O N S OF T H E D I S C SCORES FOR OPEN AND NONOPEN I N S T R U C T I O N A L PROGRAMS  PROGRAM O P E N N E S S SCORES OF AND NONOPEN F A C I L I T I E S  SUMMARY OF  TEACHER  TEACHERS I N  -85  OPEN 87  BACKGROUND  89  INFORMATION  IV  STUDENT  GROUPS  ACCORDING  TO  FACILITY  91  V  STUDENT  GROUPS  ACCORDING  TO  PROGRAM  92  VI  TESTING  I N S T R U M E N T S AND  .'VII  SYMBOLS  USED  VIII  FINAL  TO  IX  X XI  XII  XIII  IN STATISTICAL  COMPOSITION OF  T Y P E OF  MEANS AND  FACILITY  STANDARD  98  SEQUENCE  STUDENT  AND  112  ANALYSIS  SAMPLE  T Y P E OF  D E V I A T I O N S OF  I N T E R C O R R E L A T I O N S AMONG D E P E N D E N T  ACCORDING  SCHOOL  PROGRAM  VARIABLES  115  VARIABLES  ( N = 321 ) R E S U L T S OF R E G R E S S I O N A N A L Y S I S FOR T H E FOUR S U B T E S T S OF T H E C A N A D I A N T E S T S OF B A S I C SKILLS R E S U L T S OF SUBTESTS  11 II  R E G R E S S I O N A N A L Y S I S FOR T H E N I N E OF T H E S E A R S S E L F - C O N C E P T I N V E N T O R Y  D E S C R I P T I V E DATA FOR STUDENT S A M P L E ACCORDING TO T Y P E O F F A C I L I T Y , T Y P E O F PROGRAM,, AND S E X ( N = 321 )  116  118  119  121  xi LIST  OP  TABLES  TABLE XIV  XV  XVI  XVII  XVIII  XIX  XX  XXI  XXII  XXIII  XXIV  -PAGE U N A D J U S T E D AND A D J U S T E D MEANS FOR T H E F I V E D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S FOR WHICH S I G N I F I C A N T F I N D I N G S WERE POUND A C C O R D I N G TO PROGRAM OR F A C I L I T Y ( N = 321)  122  U N A D J U S T E D AND A D J U S T E D M A R G I N A L MEANS FOR T H E D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S FOR WHICH S I G N I F I C A N T F I N D I N G S WERE F O U N D A C C O R D I N G TO PROGRAM OR F A C I L I T Y  123  RELIABILITY INVENTORY  S C O R E S FOR ( N = 32)  T H E SEARS  179  RELIABILITY INVENTORY  S C O R E S FOR (N.-= I l 3 0 )  T H E SEARS  S C O R E S H E E T FOR INVENTORY  SELF-CONCEPT  SELF-CONCEPT 180  T H E SEARS SELF-CONCEPT ................  R E S U L T S OF R E G R E S S I O N ACHIEVEMENT  A N A L Y S I S FOR  RESULTS OF REGRESSION COMPREHENSION  A N A L Y S I S FOR  RESULTS OF CONCEPTS  A N A L Y S I S FOR  REGRESSION  1 89  VOCABULARY 1 91  READING 192  MATHEMATICS 193  RESULTS OF REGRESSION PROBLEM S O L V I N G  A N A L Y S I S FOR  RESULTS OF ABILITY  A N A L Y S I S FOR  REGRESSION  RESULTS OF REGRESSION APPEARANCE  MATHEMATICS 1 9ii  PHYSICAL 195  ANALYSIS  FOR'ATTRACTIVE 1 96  LIST  OP T A B L E S  TABLE XXV  PAGE RESULTS MENTAL  XXVI  XXVII  XXVIII  OP R E G R E S S I O N  A N A L Y S I S FOR  CONVERGENT 197  ABILITY  R E S U L T S OF R E G R E S S I O N A N A L Y S I S FOR S O C I A L RELATIONS WITH THE SAME S E X  198  R E S U L T S OF R E G R E S S I O N VIRTUES  199  RESULTS  A N A L Y S I S FOR S O C I A L  OP R E G R E S S I O N A N A L Y S I S FOR  DIVERGENT 200  MENTAL A B I L I T Y  XXIX  RESULTS  OF R E G R E S S I O N  A N A L Y S I S F O R WORK H A B I T S . . . . 201  XXX  RESULTS  OF R E G R E S S I O N  A N A L Y S I S FOR  HAPPY  QUALITIES R E S U L T S OF R E G R E S S I O N  A N A L Y S I S FOR  SCHOOL  XXXI  202  203  SUBJECTS  XXXII  XXXIII XXXIV  XXXV  INTERCORRELATIONS  AMONG  COVARIATES  I N T E R C O R R E L A T I O N S AMONG  COVARIATES  205  AND 207  DEPENDENT MEASURES UNADJUSTED AND A D J U S T E D MEANS FOR T H E T H I R T E E N D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S A C C O R D I N G TO P R O G R A M OR F A C I L I T Y  209  UNADJUSTED AND A D J U S T E D MEANS FOR T H E T H I R T E E N D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S A C C O R D I N G TO P R O G R A M AND F A C I L I T Y  210  xiii LIST  OP  FIGURES  FIGURE  PAGE  1.  REGRESSION  2.  A D J U S T E D MEANS FOR S I G N I F I C A N T I N T E R A C T I O N S OF F A C I L I T Y T Y P E ( O P E N V S NONOPEN) AND PROGRAM T Y P E ( O P E N V S N O N O P E N ) ON M A T H E M A T I C S CONCEPTS, CONVERGENT MENTAL A B I L I T Y , AND SOCIAL VIRTUES  MODEL  102  126  -LIST  OP A P P E N D I X E S  APPENDIX A  PAGE  INFORMATION SCHOOLING  B  C  CONCERNING  OP 155  QUESTIONNAIRE  THE DIMENSIONS (DISC V)  INFORMATION  THE DIMENSIONS  OF SCHOOLING  QUESTIONNAIRE 159  CONCERNING  THE SEARS  SELF-CONCEPT 178  INVENTORY  D  THE SEARS  SELF-CONCEPT  E  SCORE SHEET  F  INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL REGRESSION  181  INVENTORY  FOR THE SEARS  SELF-CONCEPT  V T A B L E S FOR  188  190  DEPENDENT V A R I A B L E S  G  I N T E R C O R R E L A T I O N S AMONG  COVARIATES  H  I N T E R C O R R E L A T I O N S AMONG  COVARIATES  I  20ii AND  DEPENDENT MEASURES UNADJUSTED AND A D J U S T E D MEANS FOR T H E T H I R T E E N D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S A C C O R D I N G TO P R O G R A M , TO F A C I L I T Y , A N D TO P R O G R A M A N D F A C I L I T Y  206  208  CHAPTER  NATURE AND  I  BACKGROUND  OP  THE  STUDY  Introduction  Canada educational The  f i r s t  reform  reform  Progressive and  lasted  r i g i d i t y their the  and the United  over  This  Barbara  plans  team  taught.  only  i n the American as  The is and  known  States  major years.  as the around  questioned  of children.  Their  o f a number  of  Plan, Plan,  the Batavia t h e XYZ P l a n ,  f o rthe individual which  could  schools,  Plan,  the  with  concern f o r  instructional structure the Dalton  and t h e P r o j e c t  also  be d e s c r i b e d reform  1880  l e dto several as nongraded  period  but i n the B r i t i s h  was and  f e l t  or not  Canadian  well. second  reformers  demand  became  I t sleaders  The i n f l u e n c e o f t h i s  presently  curriculum  two  hundred  l e a r n i n g w i t h i n the graded  Jersey  concern  organizational  schools  years.  l e dto the adoption  the Santa  Method.  later  i n the United  of the nature  E l i z a b e t h New  witnessed  s t r u c t u r e and i t s i n c o n s i s t e n c y  t o individualize  Plan,  which  f i f t y  have  within the last  started  o f the graded  individual  the  movement,  perceptions  plans  movements  Movement, well  States  major  s t i l l who  reform,  f o rmore  with  reform us.  demanded  I t was  better  and more  effective  movement  started  l e db y a number  schools,  caused  of  and  c r i t i c s  broad-scale  s t r e s s on fundamental  schools  1956  around  a number  s k i l l s . of  This  educators  2  to  take  a more  curricula, and  even  c r i t i c a l  equipment  the school  that  followed  on  this  could  from a  f a r right  few  as  cases  we  this of  This  reform  view. be  of  more and as  One  on  be  was  by  more  f e l t  that  this  the school  less  structured,  the elementary  learning  options  instruction, programmed  -  free  could  was  discovery schools,  instruction,  schools,  and performance  to  the Progressive  i n fact  more  with  humane,  number  the f i f t i e s a  of  and  Canadian  and  sixties,  large  number  individually  grouping,  open  computer-assisted  new  of  prescribed  space  schools,  instruction,  contracting.  to the elementary  antecedents,  Period.  open,  by  learning  community  had h i s t o r i c a l  accomplished  group  staffing,  packages,  them  other  differentiated  learning  of  school  integrated  stations,  were  could  teaching,  open  concepts  The  how  points  improvement to the  to  team  learning,  these  and i n  on  divergent  a growing  learning,  nongrading,  education,  be  presented  family  debate  subjects.  more  during  two  that  best  Consequently,  learner  view  school  seeking  The  structure  the basic  changed  spectrum,  educators  f e l t  on  schools  of  ranged  the elementary  produced  stress  American  solutions  of the schools.  adding  points  disbanded.  l e d by  of educators  child-centered.  that  schemes,  subsequent  divergent  the educational  accomplished  group  The  Their  completely  movement  and more  educators  making  be  accomplished  program  achieved.  the effectiveness best  two v e r y  to the suggestion  i t should  could  best  be  programs,  organizational  themselves.  produced  to f a r l e f t  know  increase  and m a t e r i a l s ,  best  even  at instructional  buildings  debate how  look  and could  be  While  some  school, traced  of  many  back  3 As and  t h e second  s e v e n t i e s , i t became  options, to  reform  be  open  space  accepted  by  movement  evident  schools  an  that  and open  increasing  progressed two  into  of these  education,  number  the  sixties  learning  were  of Canadian  beginning  and  American  educators.  6f  Emergence The and  Open  Space  Schools  o p e n p l a n s c h o o l h a s b e e n i n e v o l u t i o n f o r some time has both a r c h i t e c t u r a l and e d u c a t i o n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n .  The  present  reform  movement  produced  increased  recognition of the individual,  learning,  a  change  i n teacher  of  instructional  in  the architectural  as  educators  made  up  materials.  began  of equal  organizational frequently  more  important  development f i f t i e s , move  space  1950's  School  role  i n the social,  of  schools the  instruction  learning  as  Therefore,  less  to and  early  assume personal i n the  component  child-centered types  of learning,  and a  open  space  new,concept  f a c i l i t i e s  of school  States,  was  began  t o Canada  E d w i n W. M a c B e t h , "When t h e W a l l s M a n a g e m e n t XV ( A u g u s t 1971): 8 .  i n the  trend  soon e s t a b l i s h e d .  architecture  and moved  newer  pupil-  began  i n t e l l e c t u a l ,  child.  schools  cases,  structure  change  an important  i n the United  1  total-class  and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d  a  of elementary  I n many  graded  a v a i l a b i l i t y  and i t s u s e became  building  This  u t i l i z e d  into  i tproduced  the s u i t a b i l i t y  groups.  of the elementary  t o more  towards  class  of  insights  and g r e a t e r  a number  the traditional  pupil-interaction a  design of  sized  new  I n addition,  to question  plans  than  roles,  a period  i n the  early  i n t h e 1960's.  Come T u m b l i n g  Down,"  During t h i s p e r i o d , s p e c i f i c a p p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s a l change v a r i e d g r e a t l y .  Initially,  i t was  structur-  simply a m o d i f i c a p  t i o n of the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom. this i n i t i a l  stage was  A c c o r d i n g to F r a z i e r ,  f o l l o w e d by stage two  the grouping of three or more classrooms rooms.  of i t s development -  i n t o open pods or l a r g e  By the t h i r d and f i n a l stage of development,  as we have known them were no more.  classrooms  Movable w a l l s were aban-  doned i n o r d e r to o b t a i n l a r g e r areas of u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  space  that c o u l d accommodate an e n t i r e s t a f f and student body. The word spread and so d i d e l a b o r a t i o n s on the theme. The simple r e c t a n g u l a r e n c l o s u r e gave way to new p e r i m e t e r shapes - c i r c l e s , hexagons, and v o l u t e s , some i n the form o f connected pods under one r o o f , o t h e r s as campus p l a n s w i t h separate b u i l d i n g s . Refinements evolved.-' T h i s i n t e r e s t i n open space f a c i l i t i e s  continued t o  i n c r e a s e i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s to such an extent t h a t by  1970  open space f a c i l i t i e s became the norm r a t h e r than the e x c e p t i o n when new  schools and new  widespread of a 1970  s c h o o l a d d i t i o n s were b u i l t .  Just  how  t h i s t r e n d has become can be gauged from the r e s u l t s survey o f s t a t e d i r e c t o r s of s c h o o l p l a n n i n g  by the S t a n f o r d School P l a n n i n g L a b o r a t o r y .  conducted  The r e s u l t s of t h i s  survey showed t h a t over 50 p e r c e n t of a l l s c h o o l s c o n s t r u c t e d i n I 1 3 s t a t e s w i t h i n the p r e c e d i n g t h r e e years had been o f open  - 2 Alexander F r a z i e r , Open Schools f o r C h i l d r e n (Washington: A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S u p e r v i s i o n and C u r r i c u l u m Development, 1971)> pp. 12-19. ^Educational F a c i l i t i e s Laboratories, Transformation of the Schoolhouse (New York: E d u c a t i o n a l F a c i l i t i e s L a b o r a t o r i e s , 1969), p. 7»  5 space  design.^" While  in  Canada,  this  move  i talso  provinces,  t o open  witnessed  particularly  space  f a c i l i t i e s  similar  B r i t i s h  trends  Columbia  began  i n several  and  1971  were or  completely  shift  from  intended  schools  have  57  Canadian  educators  environment  also  believed  form  o f t h e 63  that  space  t o be  surveyed  that  school  some  3  showed were  that  there  p a r t i a l l y  indicated that  t o open  space  p r e s e n t l y most space  boards  general some  building  Canadian  surveyed  their  of  own  among t h e  architecturally  i s a good  o f t h e "more r e c e n t  that  older buildings.  agreement  sort  schools.  indicated  into  to their  this  f a c i l i t i e s  i n their  f a c i l i t i e s  or renovations  appeared  i n a  i n Canada than I n B r i t i s h s were b u i l t i n i n c r e a s e i n 16 struction.-  that  study  o f open  school  open  o r as a d d i t i o n s  open  and t h a t  some  to build  boards  i n Ontario  Canadian  i n design.^  1973  of a  addition, there  Canadian  space  i n Canada,  systems  Furthermore, they  schools  school  self-contained classrooms  continuing  school  In  open  results  of Ontario 360  approximately  The  is  survey  later  Ontario.  The move t o o p e n p l a n s c h o o l s b e g a n l a t e r i n t h e U.S. b u t i t i s now i n f u l l s w i n g . Columbia, where t h e f i r s t open p l a n s c h o o l 1967, t h e r e a r e n o w o v e r 260, a 65 p e r c e n t m o n t h s , a n d a n . a d d i t i o n a l 31 a r e u n d e r c o n A  much  thing.  concepts  They  i n  ^•School P l a n n i n g L a b o r a t o r y , Open-Space Schools Project B u l l e t i n ( C a l i f o r n i a : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 0 ) , p . 3. ^Ian Allen, Open P l a n - A Canadian I n v e s t i g a t i o n ( C a l i f o r n i a : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1972), p . 1. Ontario Institute f o rStudies i n Education, Directory Open P l a n S c h o o l i n O n t a r i o ( T o r o n t o : O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education, 1971).  6 teaching  and  Emergence  learning  of  Open  work  approach  elementary teacher learning of  and  open  the  but  existence body and  of the  from  was  the  knowledge  Parkhurst, and  a  i s  Piaget, by  50  plan. " 1  a -  and  This  more  been  a  I t  and  large  Bruner. of  by  open  sudden into  i s  abundance  a  number  approach departure  by  nature  emerged  a  of to from  substantial  of  by  i n Great  a  number  Froebel,  Dewey,  In  of  practical  backed  the  an  way  of  children  learn.  degree  Rousseau,  roles  personalized  implemented  regarding  grow  familiar  traditional  evolution  education  work  the  the  i n t e r e s t s and  years.  they  to  not  gradual  open  the  and  being  has  theory  i n which  discards  children's  past  countries  developed  open  n f a n t Schools are rooted aacs, Bruner, the MacThe natural outgrowth of r e l a t i o n s h i p of the teaching the development of young  that  educators.  and  influenced  other  an  freer, highly  education,,  Historically, but  a  materials  rather  over  ways  for  American  learning, past,  learning  u t i l i z e s  manipulative  B r i t i s h I Piaget, Is Froebel. s a close heories of  arrangement  student  which  Canadian  to  classroom  and  i n  Education  P h i l o s o p h i c a l l y , the i n the t r a d i t i o n of M i l l a n s , Dewey, and these philosophies i practicesoto basic t children. An  better  Britain,  Margaret  i t was  MacMillan,  of  Britain, theorists  Montessori, influenced Susan  Isaacs,  7 Report  •The C a n a d i a n E d u c a t i o n Association, Open-Area o f a CEA Study (Toronto: Bryant Press Limited,  8 0. Weininger, "The B r i t i s h t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o r t r a n s i t i o n ? " The (February 1973): 8.  Schools  1973).  Pacemakers - t r a n s p l a n t E d u c a t i o n a l C o u r i e r l)-3(li)  -  7 and  Dorothy  school  Gardner,  It agement  and  a  number  as  early  elementary  by  as  experiences  According  the  education  to  Primary  School,  words  of  to  the  study  i n Great  the  and  university  personnel.  recognition  B r i t a i n . ^  f i r s t  of  teachers, inspectors  and  influenced  many  school  1920's w h e n  mid  of  national  government  greatly  Clegg,  and  college  parliament  reports which  tional  of  received o f f i c i a l  commissioned  the  the  administrators, local  advisors,  two  and  encour-  S i r Henry  Hadow  r e p o r t on  the  His  the  and  state  two  studies,  contained  probably  the  most  issued  century.  According  Report  quoted  Clegg  of  schools.  these  to  was  commission  primary  and  i t  of  educa-  stated:  We are of the o p i n i o n t h a t the c u r r i c u l u m of the primary s c h o o l i s t o be t h o u g h t o f i n t e r m s o f a c t i v i t y and e x p e r i e n c e r a t h e r t h a n k n o w l e d g e t o be a c q u i r e d and f a c t s t o be s t o r e d . With gartens  Hadow s 1  which  established,  encouragement,  varied and  the  from  traditional  instruction  became more  individualized  of  open  the  more  found  their  moved  into  a  This  more  reinforced  way  and  approaches into  large  to  of  approach  B r i t i s h  nursery primary  i n the  learning schools  infant  schools schools  pre-primary  child-centered.  nursery  number  open  i n the  the  some  and and  In  and  kinder-  became  schools time,  many  teaching, which  had  kindergartens,  schools.  towards  learning  Infant Schools  was  further  during World  War  I I ,  o National School Public Relations Association, Informal E d u c a t i o n : 'Open C l a s s r o o m Provokes Change. Controversy ( A r l i n g t o n , Va.: N a t i o n a l S c h o o l P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n , 1  1972), p . 1 0  9.  Alec (Washington, Principals,  Clegg, Revolution i n the B r i t i s h Primary Schools D.C.: National Association of Elementary School 1971), p. 29.  8 when  large  ated  from  areas  numbers London  were  of a  They  single  more  t o meet When  former  t h e needs  methods. again  individualized These  factors  rooms  being  close  rooms  went  States B r i t i s h Their  they  again  confronted  approach i n a large  number  e s t a b l i s h e d throughout  Great  o f World largely  I I .  unnoticed  B r i t a i n  government  Primary  War  published  Schools  This  growth  throughout  i t s e l f ,  i n their  with  u n t i l  known  care. to  Some  and  B r i t a i n  o f  196?.  with  these  traditional found  that  more  learning. class-  shortly  o f B r i t i s h Canada  their  children  of open-informal  a two-volume  (commonly  teachers  and become  t o teaching  than  learning had  of the teachers  to improvise  numbers  rather  not return t o their some  of  avail-  large  returned  and experiences.  As a r e s u l t ,  resulted  readily  with  teachers  teach-  new ways  and c h i l d - c e n t e r e d as  could  necessary  were  urban  Consequently,  same  rural  Cut o f f from  with  placed  evacu-  t o more  i n age and a b i l i t y  these  and were  i n their  and even  raids.  confronted  o f the students  learning a b i l i t i e s  teaching  the  and were  as i n t h e p a s t .  that  areas  and experiment  individualized  found  were  b u i l d i n g s and supplies, these  t h e war ended,  was once  industrial  o f bombing  varied greatly  teachers  i t  and students  had to use materials which  classrooms,  different  major  to improvise  age group  become  tried  who  teachers  because  i n the environment,  children  to  school  forced  learning. able  and other  of the country  conventional ers  of urban  open  after class-  and the United  I n that  document,  as t h e Plowden  year,  the  Children and Report)  11  Lady B r i d g e t Plowden, e t a l . C h i l d r e n and Their Primary Schools; A Report of the Central Advisory Council f o r Education V o l . I & I I (London: Her Majesty's S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e , 1967). 1 1  written  by  a Parliamentary  Commission  under  Lady  Plowden.  Not only  this  more  child-centered approach  in  open  a d d i t i o n i turged The  Canada of  birth  was  pact  o f open  significant  that  open  t o open  of the B r i t i s h  attention t o  a l l English primary  i n the United only  education  schools. education,  primary  c a l l  of  t o l e a r n i n g i n 1967,  F o r i t was  and Canadian  exposure  by  education  recent.  Report  on American  portion  i t s adoption  f a r more  the Plowden  d i d the commission  the leadership  schools,  States  after  began  Perhaps,  D  U  t  schools  and  the release  t o have the  an im-  f i r s t  as p r a c t i c e d i n a occurred  when  a  series  12 of  articles  Republic  In  impetus  and September  Herbert  Crisis  financed  Featherstone  further attention with  Howes,  1970,  study  Kohl,  w r i t t e n by  then,  of Canadian  school  Toronto,  and  Montreal.  It  has  also  school the  d i s t r i c t s ,  Brooklyn  areas  gained  as  a result  and  Silberman,  open  York  even  acceptance  more  i n a  Vancouver,  i n a number  of  the East  o f t h e 'open  Rathbone.  movement.  notably,  City,  Holt  Corporation  added  education  has gained  education  Charles  the Carnegie  J  acceptance New  New  w r i t i n g s of John  d i s t r i c t s ,  notably,  i n the  the later  Charles  education  appeared Open  Roland Barth, 1 3  American  open  f i r s t  o f 1967.  i n the Classroom.  to the North  Since number  Joseph  i n August  attracted V i r g i l  by  American Bronx,  corridor'  and  program  1 2 Joseph Featherstone, "The i n B r i t a i n , " A Pitman/New Republic Publ. Corp., 1968).  Primary Reprint  School Revolution (New Y o r k : Pitman  Charles Silberman, Random House, 1971).  i n the Classroom  13  Crisis  (New  York:  10 of  L i l l i a n  Weber,  school  districts  States  as  Center  i n Newton,  a  attention  and  a  of  the  New  Vermont,  as  training  institutions,  Boston,  York,  the  Connecticut,  must  North  as  the  such  Harvard  United  States  mented  new  into  elementary the  open  and  Canada  refers  contained  1  movement  during  the  while  method  the or  classroom  or  and  of  the  open  and  teacherWheelock  College  University  education  portion  of  the  which  of  term,  of  Administrators  have  American  The  and  space  may  i s  been and  or  i n the  education,  environment  open  to  rapidly  decade,  movement  i t  s t i l l  a  impleCanadian  equated  United  term,  architectural  teaching  grown last  confused  decades.  open  of  This  be  developed  two  type  not  has  w i t h i n the  said  should  an  education  be  Thomas C r u m b a u g h ,  Teachers  the  Massachusetts,  College,  can  style  environment.  Development  attracted  number  Dakota,  Canada  and  last  particular  environment,  physical  I t  i n open  the  small  schools.  a  particular  a  a  United  of.education,  Jersey,  Leslie  North  and  movement,  only  space  to  that  also  ten  1  the  relatively  as,  the  i n  University. ^"  interest  remembered  New  of  Educational  departments  a t t e n t i o n of  this  be  the  classrooms  half  I t has  Dakota,  U n i v e r s i t y of  and  eastern of  state  While within  work  of  notably,  in  the  elementary  Massachusetts.  number  well  90  some  throughout  result  of  i n  with  States  open  space,  school refers to  a  learning within be  either a  a  self-  classroom.  "The Development i n Implementing  of Models to A i d and Maintaining  Programs o f O p e n E d u c a t i o n i n Elementary S c h o o l s " (Ed. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , M o n t a n a S t a t e University, 1972), pp. 59-61.  11 Need  Lack  of Adequate A  review  Chapter the  United  to  struction  have  nature  have  taken  years.  a move  Nor  away  from  space  evidence  a  This  1972,  a l l y  inconclusive.  have  tended  the  this  i n Canada  i t indicate type  of  open  and any  the counter-  school  space  conup  to  classrooms,  understanding  but have  support  open  i s found  f a i l e d  i t scontinued  conclusion i s supported  t h e number  increased rapidly,  to  but  While  support  s t u d i e s have  of  of  the  to  provide  use  by  as  a  learn-  Brunetti  et  the  to  50 C a n a d i a n a n d American have r e v e a l e d t h a t most o r y i n n a t u r e and do n o t or causal^relationships outcomes. ^  s t u d i e s o f open  their  open  tended  % r a n k Brunetti. Open Space S c h o o l , " 1  would  i n  state:  Since  other  which  F o r , what  classroom,  A r e v i e w and a n a l y s i s o f over studies of open-space schools research efforts are explorat show c o n s i s t e n t c o r r e l a t i o n a l between space and a t t i t u d i n a l  has  place  better  f o r or against  data  i n detail  c o n s t r u c t i o n and  does  program.  to provide  o f the open  who  school  exploratory studies of  environment.  a l . ,  which  considered  s t a t i s t i c a l  space  instructional  helped  conclusive ing  t o open  support  or  l i t t l e  i n recent  are mainly  which  educational research,  programs  States  evidence  1972  of  shift  educational  Study  Research  I I , indicates  present  f o r the Present  findings  findings  space  of  continue some  classrooms,  support  the  classrooms t o be  ofrthe the  gener-  studies  findings  self-contained  of  class-  e t a l . , " S t u d i e s o f Team T e a c h i n g I n t e r c h a n g e 3(2-3) (1972): 87.  i n  12 room;  and  shown  no  i n  even  This  may  of  the  earlier  to  use  large  economic usually  on  a  type  error,  other put  being  failure of  and  hand.  l i t t l e  the  may  vary  i s  to  control  f a c i l i t y  -  open  may  defined  by  on  focus  year  the  class-  space  of  have as  Marascuilo  the  socio-  open the  type  some and  of  and  the  type  to  the  any  new  i n s t r u c t i o n even  i n s t r u c t i o n a l  school  within  the  researchers  f a c i l i t y ,  classrooms  -  with  space to  or  space  the  from  have  open  hand,  associated  Many  failed  subjected  one  that  variables i n  of  school  shows  led  types  been  the  on  greatly  have  two  variables  have  classroom  both  have  designed,  f i r s t  may  within  findings  different factors.  Furthermore, no  the  Additionally, they  problems  research  within  the  such  Sffect  or  conducted of  of  poorly  the  thus  Halo  classroom to  which  been  organizational  to  from  number  during  studies  between  control,for  the  classrooms  even  This  or  of  i n t e l l i g e n c e .  or  conducted  contained  as  of  review  programs  and  a  have  conducted  the  program  and  studies  effect  tended  though  number  to  operation,  kinds  venture  due  samples  been  Hawthorne  al  be  status  classroom's  have  larger  s i g n i f i c a n t differences  rooms.  usual  a  of  cases Levin  within  self-  to  school,  same  school.  program to "as  a  as  Type  the  well IV  incor-  16 rect  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  Thus, pupils the  the  observed  from  result  P o s t Hoc Analysis American  the of  two  a  correctly rejected  s i g n i f i c a n t differences types  program  L e o n a r d A. M a Comparisons of Variance Educational  of  f a c i l i t y  differences  may  rather  hypothesis." found  between  a c t u a l l y have than  the been  differences  rascuilo a n d J o e l R. L e v i n , "Appropriate f o r I n t e r a c t i o n and N e s t e d H y p o t h e s i s i n D e s i g n s : The E l i m i n a t i o n of Type IV Errors," R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l 7(3) (May 1970): 398.  13 attributed may  have  to the type  been  variables,  type  This  need  to a  lack  f o r further  been  associated with  than may  place  a form  a  design  supportive for  cognitive  of  school  these  to  accomplish  The  Problem  stated  as 1.  type  between  on  The  -  f a c i l i t y .  interaction program  interaction  same  these  general  there  of f a c i l i t y  measures.  The  example,  that has  often  always  outcomes  on p u p i l  two  there  variables. both  i n  and the p a u c i t y o f there  i s a  the affective  i n relation  In addition,  For  openness  trends,  t o examine  suggests  Additionally,  these  programs,  space  but has not  effect  towards  of instructional  type  open  program  between  f o r these  t h e two  variables  f a c i l i t y .  of trends  of children  on  of the problem.  a greater  studies designed  factors  research  of school  evidence  between  they  f a c i l i t y .  classrooms  and i n s t r u c t i o n a l  outcomes  of  significant  space have  i n view  research  research  school  type  significant  Therefore, school  may  importantly  interaction  of instructional  open  i n them,  the variable, be  to other  investigation  education,  o r more  and type  o f adequate  i n relation  open  taken  significant  of program  acute  classrooms a  due  of f a c i l i t y ,  to both  program  present  of  and these  as w e l l  i s a need  and type  of  need  as  type  to study  the  instructional  study  was  designed  ends.  problem  under  investigation  i n this  study i s  follows: How  are type  tional of  of school  program  t h i r d  grade  related children  f a c i l i t y  and type  t o the measured  of  instruc-  performance  i n (a) vocabulary,  (b)  reading  comprehension, mathematics  (c) mathematics  problem  solving,  concepts,  (d)  and t o (e) measures  of  self-concept? 2.  Additionally, type on  3.  of f a c i l i t y  these  same  Finally, actions ables and  what  interactions  and type  outcome  using  these  are there  school  program  measures? outcome  between  factors  between  of instructional  same  (intelligence,  are there  measures,  individual  socio-economic  (type  what  difference status,  of f a c i l i t y  interv a r i -  and sex)  and type  of  program)?  Specific  Questions  The  problem  points  -  around  which  these  type  the study  questions  and type  has been  fully,  i n terms  s t a t i s t i c a l  i n general  of f a c i l i t y  variables  problem  stated  i t was  of specific  hypotheses  could  terms  designed.  questions  f o rwhich  answers  W i l l  of f a c i l i t y  two  of instructional  necessary  be  provides  drawn.  a r e sought  focal  program  I n order  to restate  to  -  explore  the general  from  which  testable  The  seven  specific  i n the study  a r e as  follows: 1.  type  either  measures  have  a  significant  o f achievement  effect  o r measures  of  on self-  concept? 2.  W i l l  type  effect of 3.  of instructional  on either  measures  program  have  o f achievement  a  significant or  measures  self-concept?  W i l l  there  be  a  significant  interaction  between  type  of  school  f a c i l i t y  and  on  either  measures  of  type  of  instructional  achievement  program  or measures  of  self-concept? ii.  W i l l and of  there either  school  measures 5.  W i l l  f a c i l i t y of  there  there  of  there  significant  type  Be  of  tested  refer  S k i l l s : and  of  and/or  achievement  of  interaction  either  school  of  type  or  between  of  instructional  on  measures  self-concept?  interaction  instructional on  type  f a c i l i t y  of  significant  between  program  measures  of  sex  and/or achievement  self-concept? any  significant  individual  higher  student  level  factors school  (type  of  inter-  difference  socio-economic status,  questions  s t a t i s t i c a l  achievement  program  IQ  and  sex)  instructional  and  program  f a c i l i t y ) ?  Tested  specific  are  of be  and  f a c i l i t y  (IQ,  and  To  a  between  school  measures  or measures  school  the  hypotheses  Concepts,  a  type  measures  W i l l  Hypotheses  be  either  variables  Basic  be  and/or  actions  seven  on  between  self-concept?  achievement  W i l l  interaction  instructional  type  or  the  of  program  type  The  type  significant  status  and  7.  a  socio-economic  of 6.  be  to  l i s t e d  hypotheses at the  the four  to  third  above be  the  tested.  grade  subtests  form  the  Measures  Canadian  Vocabulary, Reading  Comprehension,  Mathematics  Solving.  Problem  f o r  A l l seven  l e v e l .  of  basis  null of  Tests  Mathematics  Measures  of  self-  of  concept  refer  Inventory: Mental  the nine  Physical  A b i l i t y ,  Divergent School  to  subtests  A b i l i t y ,  Social  the  Attractive  Relations  Mental A b i l i t y ,  of  Work  with  Sears  Self-Concept  Appearance,  Same  Sex,  Habits,  Happy  hypotheses tested  were:  Convergent  Social  Virtues,  Qualities,  and  Subjects. The Ho^  seven n u l l There  w i l l  measures between Ho£  There  of the  w i l l  measures between Ho^  There type on  be  the  w i l l of  two  types  no  two be  of  on  self-concept  differences  o r measures  of  of  on  instructional  programs.  interaction  and  instructional  type  of  of  achievement  either  self-concept  significant  measures  either  f a c i l i t i e s .  significant  types  no  differences  or measures  of  achievement  f a c i l i t y  either  significant  achievement  be  of  no  between program  or measures  of  self-concept. Ho^  There IQ  w i l l  and  be  either  f a c i l i t y  on  no  significant  type  interaction  of program  measures  of  and/or  achievement  type  between of  or measures  of  self-concept. Ho^  There  w i l l  be  no  socio-economic gram  and/or  achievement Ho^  There and on  w i l l  status  type  of  (SES)  be  no  type  measures  of  of  achievement  on  either  between  type  measures  of  pro-  of  self-concept.  significant of program  interaction and  f a c i l i t y  or measures  either  concept.  significant  interaction  and/or  between  sex  type  of  f a c i l i t y  or measures  of  self-  17 Ho  There  ?  w i l l  actions SES,  be  no  between  and  o f Terms  Open  Schools  as  Space  schools  which  self-contained tional work  area  Nonopen with  space  An  Open  as  an  one  and  space  combined o r more  sound  of  teachers  one  They  space  designed  Instructional  Program  (open  program)  being  learning  actively which  abundance  curiosity  stresses  where  use of interest materials.  individual  centers I n this  determined  by  Dimensions  of Schooling  study,  (1972): 69-83.  as  schools  to  accommo-  I t i s defined principles  education  small  with  experiences,  group  day, the  study,  and  thought-provoking  program  Questionnaire  approach  strategy f o r  i n i t i a t e d  an a n a l y s i s o f the teacher's  ^ R o s s E. T r a u b , e t a l . , D e s c r i b i n g and Q u a n t i f y i n g Open 1  instruc-  schools  an unstructured  and  f i l l e d  more  children.  I t i s a  of pupil  of learning resources,  of children,  of  the open  practice.  the use  or  pupils to  the philosophical  underlying  put into  common  are defined  group  are  t o two  other.  class  beliefs  defined  (conventionally built  instructional  program  are  and t h e i r  and one  theoretical  of  f a c i l i t y ) .  equivalent  teacher  and  (type  They  to form  o f each  or Classrooms  instructional  learning  factors  classrooms)  teaching  a l l o w i n g two  of separate  only  inter-  difference variables (IQ,  and type  self-contained classrooms)  date  the  (open  classrooms  Schools  compoaed  an  program  level  Used  have  within sight  individual  higher  sex) and the school  instructional  Definition  significant  (DISC  openness responses  1  V),  was on the  7 an  "Closure on Openness: Education," Interchange  3(2-3)  18 instrument In  order  for  openness A  to  differentiate a  score  Nonopen  of  academic  s k i l l s  class  V.  this  nonopen,  used  to  to  (nonopen as  by  by  more as  i n order  one  openness  teacher's  17.5.  greater greater  greater  use use  A  nonopen  by  on  use  the  of  preon  prescribed large  scores to  greater  emphasis  of of  classroom  score  the  program)  by  frequent  a  open,  styles.  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  determined for  teaching  above  t i m e t a b l e s , by  standards, and  as  be  experiences,  and  Schooling  on  which  majority ranked  a  a  a  variety  of by  open  of  a  dimensions  instructional  instruction  items the  of  contain teacher  (DISC  consisting  description  teacher's of  Questionnaire  questionnaire  obtain  practices  be  had  i s defined  teacher's  of  teacher  program to  study,  V  nonopen  classed  Program  instruction,  the  Dimensions a  DISC  be  and  be  DISC  on  group the  DISC  classed V  had  or  as  to  be.  13.5.  below  is  and  materials  entire  to  i n i t i a t e d  curricula  and  In  the  program  teacher  determined  texts  on  Instructional  instructional use  classroom  open  four  i n terms  y\  i n order program  of  how  instrument  which  can  be  instructional to  assess  reflects  program  five  This  items  classroom's  i n ten or  of  V)  areas.  alternatives often  they  the  extent  the The which  must  occur  i n  1 8 their  classroom.  18 A f u r t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n of the Dimensions of Schooling Q e s t i o n n a i r e c a n b e f o u n d i n A p p e n d i x A, a n d a c o p y o f i t c a n be f o u n d i n A p p e n d i x B.  19  CHAPTER I I  REVIEW  OF  RELATED  RESEARCH  Introduction  Since classroom a  large  their  and open  number  effect  children. and  1970, educational  analyze The  have  of researchers  on  The  education  concepts  such  attracted  who  have  their  review  intent  of this  t h e open  space  the attention of  attempted  the c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e primary  as  to  evaluate  outcomes  chapter  i s to  of summarize  findings. w i l l  be  divided into  two main  sections  as  follows: 1 .  Research  on Open  2.  Research  on Open  Research  The  concept,  and  controversy  ing  number  to  open  Space  Classrooms  on Open  teachers  instructional  States  programs  i n s t r u c t u r e and philosophy.  open  approaches number  American ing  to learning has  of elementary  and Canadian  an open  education  attracted and Canada  both  interest  as an i n c r e a s -  and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have  open  large  Education  education,.has  i n the United  of school  implement  Education  which While  attracted  school  could this  that  could  program  appears  move  classed to  be  t o be  t h e number said quite  t o be  as  more  the attention of  educators,  schools  be  attempted  a  of u t i l i z -  small.  20 Open a  education  i s a  style  s t i m u l a t i n g environment  teaching made  to the class  f o r children  centers  f i l l e d  It  i s a  concept  by  a variety  and  as a whole,  a  their  large  which  o f names  a l l  though have  many  common  by  Stephens,  described  Open e d u c a t i o n to change, t o use o f space, teacher and p u to c h i l d r e n ' s making i n the The United  States  open  and  own  variety  education,  as open  American  open model, stages Open  who  25  education  do  materials. i t i s known  informal  education,  of forms.  exist,  and b e l i e f s ,  But,  they perhaps  well  states:  interest  i n open  motivated  supporters They  Britain,  who  education  perhaps  large  urge  i t s acceptance  point  Research  t o open i n Great  degree  to the growing  although  another  i n Canada  to a  i t i s f e l t  of Britain's  of transformation  Education  a c t i v i t y  i s an approach t o education, t h a t i s open new i d e a s , t o c u r r i c u l u m , t o s c h e d u l i n g , t o to honest expressions of feeling between p i l and between p u p i l and p u p i l , and open participation i n significant decisionclassroom.  percent  with  since  i n a variety  characteristics  schools.  i n Great  about  o f open  at  of manipulative  such  of  provision i s  interests  to define  has been  education  schools only  renewed  i s a minimum  i s d i f f i c u l t  forms  many  there  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  and i n which  t h e i n t e g r a t e d d a y , a n d comes  even  of  i n which  to pursue  with  of teaching  primary  25  percent  education.  by  and the a  i n  number  that  schools  at  number Canadian of  present  f i t this  o r so i n v a r i o u s  20  B r i t a i n  ' L i l l i a n S. S t e p h e n s , The T e a c h e r ' s G u i d e t o Open E d u c a t i o n (New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t a n d W i n s t o n , 197i|), p . 2  School  0  Vincent (London:  such  R. R o g e r s , Teaching i n the B r i t i s h M a c M i l l a n Company, 1970), p . v .  Primary  27.  In  addition t o being  the  B r i t i s h  primary  and  promoted  schools,  by t h e Plowden  four  years  only  d i d the commission  Children to  studying  and T h e i r  a l l B r i t i s h  traditionally slightly  classes  schools.  children  academically  to place  by discovery,  more  a group  i n Great  than  emphasis  and p r a c t i c a l  Not  i n i t s report, i t s  extension  found  classes  the children  teachers  spent  Britain.  commission  i n streamed  of  accepted  which  b u t i turged  The  percent  has been  education  Schools,  classes, and that  tended  learning  open  25  over  education  education  praise  Primary  taught  open  by w e l l  Commission,  primary  primary  better  non-streamed  accepted  that  scored  only  i n t h e more  open  i n the non-streamed  on s e l f - e x p r e s s i o n , experience.  A s t r a i g h t comparison between streamed and non-streamed s c h o o l s showed t h a t p u p i l s i n t h e streamed s c h o o l s h a d s l i g h t l y h i g h e r mean s c o r e s on t h e a t t a i n m e n t t e s t s . The d i f f e r e n c e s were g r e a t e r t h e more t h e t e s t reflected " t r a d i t i o n a l " e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s ; they were largest for mechanical arithmetic and smallest f o r reading. What that  i n math  examined studies  work  which  of pupil  these  s k i l l s  f i n d i n g s was  open  scored  only  i n open  who  slightly  was  classrooms.  study  i n which  she compared  6?g -  years  o l d , who  had received  7^  higher  further  conducted  her f i r s t  children  fact  s k i l l s .  classroom  o f D.E.M. G a r d n e r  achievement  the  l e a r n i n g and c o g n i t i v e  d i d not stress these  of the B r i t i s h  by t h e work  published  about  stressed rote  and reading  the schools The  of  surprising  the classes which  growth than  was  longitudinal  I n 191+2,  she  the achievement their  P1 Lady B r i d g e t Plowden, e t a l . Children and Their Primary Schools; A Report of the Central Advisory Council f o r Education V o l . I & I I (London: Her Majesty's Stationery O f f i c e , 1967), 2: 5 8 9 .  22  education based  on  i n the  achievement ways. to  In  and  end  of  children  of  in  free  ing  and  task  of  children  from  the  story  read  to  tested  she  period,  towards  other  own  them,  formal  When  i n  more  more  programs  formal  she  were  to  and  classes  these  found  d e f i n i n g words,  superior" pictures,  and  neatly,  i n  concentrat-  well  answering  working  at  the  interesting  as  allowed  children  that  quickly  did i n  traditional  c h i l d r e n were  c h i l d r e n , and and  largely-  the  " d i s t i n c t l y  make  working  choice,  was  children, with  "the  ingeniously  their  curriculum  schools,  school open  i n  painting,  behavior  a  a  more  material  drawing  social on  the  of  play."  Infant  the  i n t e r e s t s of  group  and  their  assembling  good  f i r s t  from  i n which  c h i l d r e n educated  talk  in  schools  spontaneous  the  move  the  infant  as  i n  the  questions  sample  sums  on  i n  22  arithmetic, In  and  1950, the  into  the  Junior  nine  and  ten  year  olds  second  school.  year  olds  schools.  She  were of  case  the  t e s t s were  The  results  group  tended  their  own  study  c h i l d r e n from  the  A  one  of  number  i n  five  found  the  f o r to  the be  choice,  ten  the  of  i n  of  which  Infant  t e s t s were  schools f o r  favouring  neither  group,  year  olds i n  f o r  of  the the  showed  schools  and  results  where  results  the  f o r  the  four  i n  of  group.  experimental  on  l i s t e n i n g  remembering  Gardner, L o n g Term R e s u l t s Methuen and Company, 1950),  five  except  concentration and  a  i n  to  nine  experimental that  she  administered  the  favour  test  types  traditional  i n  superior  published  two  that  schools  decidedly  was  these  inconclusive  D. E . M. Methods (London: 2 2  reading.  her  followed  informal  i n  task  of Infant pp. 1-2.  of a School  23 passage  read,  arithmetic o r i g i n a l  s o c i a b i l i t y ,  sums,  composition,  ingenuity,  poetry.  She  reading,  found  no  free  drawing,  English  results  i n  composition,  which  the  and  t r a d i t i o n a l  23 schools  tended  She gated  open  the  and  She  s k i l l that  the  i n  open  that  and  with  i n which  twelve  children  p a i r s  from  English,  The  ten  the  year  schools  showed  considerable  and  olds  i n  i n v e s t i -  primary  informal  schools  neatness,  i n t e r e s t s the  group  was  only  i n i n  at  informal neatness, arithmetic  s u p e r i o r i t y . - ^  f i n d i n g s appear Barth  of  the  t r a d i t i o n a l I t  she  ingenuity,  remembering,  handwriting.  Roland  1966  and  of  Gardner's  education,  i n  i n  drawing,  ahead  t r a d i t i o n a l  interpreted  the  l e v e l .  reading,  study  programs  l i s t e n i n g  also  Although on  third  free  school  were  i n  a  found  s k i l l ,  junior  schools  superior.  education  "better"  care  be  reported  schools. did  to  warns  to  that  r e f l e c t her  favourably  f i n d i n g s must  be  caution.  Her sampling procedure i s open to s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n . . . . I t i s an e x p e r i m e n t a l school u s u a l l y because of an innovative leader, carefully selected or trained teachers, and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a r i c h supply of m a t e r i a l s . Nevertheless, Gardner assumes t h a t the random group of c o n t r o l s c h o o l s i s "matched" w i t h the random group of experimental s c h o o l s w i t h r e s p e c t to the important v a r i a b l e s i n q u e s t i o n . . . . Her method o f statistical a n a l y s i s i s , however, u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d . She c o m p a r e s mean p e r f o r m a n c e o f e n t i r e s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n s on e a c h m e a s u r e , never r e p o r t i n g range or standard d e v i a t i o n of scores.... One can admire her i n t e n t i o n , but..it i s i m p o s s i b l e to accept her conclusions with great confidence. ?'  •*Ibid.,  pp.  ^D. E . M. Schools (London:  School  R o l a n d S. (New York:  101-107.  Gardner, Experiment Methuen and Company,  and  T r a d i t i o n i n Primary pp. 192-207.  1 9 6 6 ) ,  Barth, Open E d u c a t i o n Schocken Books, 1 9 7 2 ) ,  and p.  the 16.  American  2k Open  Education In  addition to  eleven  studies  States  to  open ers  Research  have  examine  education have  studies  three  comparative  In second  room  was  studies  allows  She  found  students,  that and  the  observation  to  was  observed  for  be  through  A p r i l .  At  one  below  Dobson  the  reading grade  United  outcomes  studies, Only  The  the  reading  patterns  i n  researchthree  results  Gardner's  at  least an  as  classrooms s k i l l s . having  provides  a  about  and end  grade  level. a  of  the  a  of  of the  findings.  '  class-  informal of  for  to  materials  hours  these  one-half  reading.  Each  periods, from  she  three  eight  self-taught."  observation  level,  open  variety  activity  study,  of  already  more  one-third  afternoon  who The  p a r t i a l l y  engaging  two-hour  at  conducted  open  child-initiated  eight, morning  and  Gardner,  the  support  reading  spent  i n  between  were  these  by  to  study  was  equally  students  two  "which  they  time  of  and  affective  i n nature.  failed  i n this  reading that  i n Canada  four  States  conducted  c o g n i t i v e outcomes.  grade  environment reading  studies  United  Outcomes  f i r s t  described  but  on  c h i l d r e n from  basic  educational  In  Oliver evaluated  grade  the  c o g n i t i v e and  comparative  Cognitive  and  conducted  student  were  1973,  possessed  B r i t i s h  been  mainly  these  of  the  Canada  classrooms.  focused  Studies  i n  child divided  December  found above  of  that  four  grade  level,  ?6  comparative  study  i n  1971+, u s i n g  Adela Oliver, "Reading Patterns of Second Grade C h i l d r e n i n O p e n C l a s s e s " ( P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Yeshiva U n i v e r s i t y , 1973).  fifteen  25 experimental classroom gram  by  to  tration  and  showed  on no  two  tests  and  The  which  grade  were  devised  and  of  second  tests  grade  which  again  B r i t i s h  of  on  and the  favoured  cultural Wechsler  description of  the  given  school  eight  s k i l l s  (reading,  i n Great  B r i t a i n  creativity.  The  results  performance  the  scores  i n the  The were  two  groups  matched  Intelligence program  on  and  of  three  control subjects  background,  open  built  been  concen-  1971L.  students  had  and  c h i l d r e n except  i n May  Columbia  language  scores  two  basic  pro-  remembering,  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  and  A  subjects  and  space  who  traditionally  tasks  1973*  Children.  i n a  three  November  verbal  control subjects  mathematics),  task),  open  i n t e g r a t e d day  of  s k i l l s ,  and  an  tasks  basic  sex,  and  i n an  three  groups  age,  program  (ingenuity, listening a  taught  included  of  of  been  fifteen  second  significant  Vancouver,  had  family grouping  years,  years,  Gardner  who  traditional  do  writing,  the  a  three  tasks  by  u t i l i z i n g  f o r three  taught for  subjects  i n  of the  bases  performance  Scale  f o r  followed  by  the  27  experimental In  and  students  procedures  reading  from  with  procedures, reading  i s included  197ii> R o b i n s o n  achievement, grade  subjects  and  a  a  compared  the  attitudes of  classroom  classroom  found  i n the  that  report.  self-concept, equal  following "less self-concept  were  not  However,  reading  scores  were  significantly  favoured  the  2  Formal School  conventional  teaching  the  different.  different  Schools  f i r s t  teaching  and  significantly  schools.  of  open"  open"  scores  scores  reading  numbers  f o l l o w i n g "more  attitude  more  1  were  and chosen  ^Lee Dobson, "Performance of Pupils: Informal vs. Classes." (Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: Vancouver B o a r d , 1971+)» (Mimeographed.)  26 b a s e d on  the  teachers'  r a t i n g s of  their respective  educational  28 m e t h o d s u s i n g an During the  educational beliefs  the  same y e a r ,  inventory.  Owen, F r o m a n , and  Calchera  compared  e f f e c t s o f an o p e n e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m a f t e r a p e r i o d  n i n e months w i t h self-concept  the  s c a l e , a measure o f c r e a t i v i t y ,  locus of c o n t r o l , total  sample o f  students offered  and  145  fifth,  sixth,  a g e d , and  one  scheduling  which u t i l i z e d  and  centers.  t h e i r own  eighth  The  students  of a  grade  The  school  as n o n g r a d e d , m u l t i organized  were r e s p o n s i b l e  social  for  s t u d i e s , language  They f o u n d o n l y one  which favoured  a  an o p e n p r o g r a m t o i t s  described  math, s c i e n c e ,  creativity,  and  learning activities  r e a d i n g programs.  difference,  a measure  England school.  p r o g r a m and  o p e n p r o g r a m was  around resource  seventh,  s u b u r b a n New  both a t r a d i t i o n a l The  program u s i n g  f i v e measures of achievement u s i n g  from a r u r a l  students.  arts,  e f f e c t s of a t r a d i t i o n a l  of  the open  significant education  29 group.  7  S t u d i e s o f A f f e c t i v e Outcomes During  this  same p e r i o d , r e s e a r c h e r s  studies  t o c o m p a r e p u p i l s e l f - c o n c e p t , and  explore  p u p i l a t t i t u d e s and  l e a r n i n g environments. show no types  of  significant  The  also two  s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the results of  these  conducted studies two  five  to  types  of  s t u d i e s tended  d i f f e r e n c e s between the p u p i l s from the  to two  environments.  ®<Jack Wayne R o b i n s o n , " S e l f - C o n c e p t and R e a d i n g A c h i e v e ment o f T h i r d G r a d e S t u d e n t s i n S c h o o l s D i f f e r i n g i n D e g r e e s o f O p e n n e s s " ( E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a , 1 9 7 4 ) . 2  ^ S t e v e n Owen, R o b e r t F r o m a n , and D a v i d C a l c h e r a . Effects o f Open E d u c a t i o n on S e l e c t e d C o g n i t i v e and A f f e c t i v e M e a s u r e s -. ( B e t h e s d a , Md.: E R I C D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , JUD 093 9^b). 2 <  27 The  f i r s t  conducted  by  self-esteem fourth, and  Brown and  f i f t h ,  three  study  and  and  results  indicated  self-esteem  and  difference  i n  131+  i n  total  at  open  the  the  compared  of did  the  classes  Manifest  Inventory. level  students find  f o u r t h grade  the  from  education  Children's  groups  one  students  Self-Esteem  she  was  She  differences i n  However,  self-esteem  1973.  three  using  significant  classes.  i n  area  underachieving  grade  the  i n this  State  Coopersmith's  between  traditional  of  classes  the no  reported  York  sixth  traditional  Scale  be  i n New  anxiety  Anxiety  or  to  a  of  i n  The anxiety  the  open  significant  level  which  -  favoured  30 the  open  classroom.-^  1973>  In the in  three his  open  study  Concept  Kohler  73  (73  males  as  to  females)  The  students  and  was  from  83 were  students  open  and  three  degree  any  and  the  of  three  to the  i n  were  from  noted  among  In the  (53  156  age.  of  No  schools, both males  and  were  males  schools.  were  found  However, found  between males  cases,  higher  i n  open  the  Self-  significant  programs.  self-concept  used  students  traditional  of  rate  Sears  of. s e l f - c o n c e p t  types  i n open  The  and  to  schools  students  schools,  years  total  126  three  s i x areas  schools.  traditional  to  the  two  Scales  openness.  open  twelve  the  females  traditional  of  administered  differences i n  males  self-esteem  the  nine  between  between  and  females)  i n  significant  Walberg-Thomas  their  differences the  the  schools  Inventory  and  used  levels  i n of  schools.  30 Peggy O l i v i a Esteem, A n x i e t y , and achieving Elementary C l a s s r o o m s " ( E d . D. d  Jones Brown, "A C o m p a r i s o n o f SelfBehaviour o f B l a c k and N o n - B l a c k UnderSchool Students i n Open and S t r a t i f i e d i s s e r t a t i o n , C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1973).  28 No c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e f o u n d  between a s c h o o l ' s openness and t h e  •2-1  student's self-concept.-' When G l i n s k y e x a m i n e d t h e e f f e c t s o f c l a s s r o o m on  the self-concept o f f o u r t h graders  d e s i g n i n 1973, he f o u n d had  using a  openness  pretest-posttest  that the students  i n t h e open c l a s s e s  a s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e  towards s c h o o l , and  asked  more q u e s t i o n s  than  the students  i n t h e more  "restricted  e n v i r o n m e n t . "-^ In and  1973, K o s k o f f  fourth graders  c o m p a r e d t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t o f 115  from open c l a s s e s f o l l o w i n g  third  the B r i t i s h  o p e n e d u c a t i o n m o d e l w i t h t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t o f 108 t h i r d  and .  fourth graders  were  from a t r a d i t i o n a l  setting.  The s c h o o l s  r a t e d f o r d e g r e e s o f o p e n n e s s o n t h e TDR A s s o c i a t e s ' Observation by  S c a l e and t h e s t u d e n t s were r a t e d i n s e l f - c o n c e p t  the P i e r s - H a r r i s  Children's Self-Concept  s c h o o l s were matched f o r socio-economic ratio, in  and g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a .  than  Scale.  The  status, teacher-pupil  The h y p o t h e s i s  the open c l a s s e s would a c h i e v e  concepts  Classroom  that the c h i l d r e n  significantly higher  the c h i l d r e n from the t r a d i t i o n a l  self-  classrooms  33 was r e j e c t e d . 31 P a u l Terence K o h l e r , "A C o m p a r i s o n o f Open a n d T r a d i t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n : C o n d i t i o n s t h a t P r o m o t e S e l f - C o n c e p t " ( P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C o n n e c t i c u t , 1973).  32 •  . Mark Warren G l i n s k y , " E f f e c t s o f C l a s s r o o m Openness on Fourth Graders' Self-Concept, School A t t i t u d e s , ObservingI n f e r r i n g a n d Q u e s t i o n A s k i n g B e h a v i o r s " ( P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y , 1973). 33 Charlotte Goldstein Koskoff, "A C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e S e l f Concept o f C h i l d r e n E n r o l l e d i n American Open-Primary Schools and A m e r i c a n T r a d i t i o n a l S c h o o l s " ( P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C o n n e c t i c u t , 1973).  29 D u r i n g t h e same y e a r , R u e d i and W e s t c o m p a r e d t h e c o n c e p t o f 24 f o u r t h , open s c h o o l w i t h grade the  fifth,  p r o g r a m s f o l l o w e d b y t h e two The  Word M e a n i n g  total  s c o r e s on  the twenty comparisons,  a significant difference. from t h e open s c h o o l 1975,  used  in  30  and  results of '  to determine i f  s c o r e s and/or  groups  in  their  Academic When  to compare t h e g r o u p s , o n l y  This difference  Arlin  revealed  favoured the students  reported  a s t u d y i n w h i c h he e x a m i n e d c o n t r o l on d e g r e e  of pupil  ascribes  school-related  (internal) or ascribes  such as t e a c h e r s o r p l a i n pupils  county school  sixth,  and  de-  s u c c e s s e s and  them t o o t h e r  (external).  i n o p e n e n v i r o n m e n t s and  classrooms (fourth,  a semi-rural  luck  the  satis-  This p a r t i c u l a r l o c u s of c o n t r o l r e p r e s e n t s the  to h i m s e l f  one  environment.^  to which a p u p i l  w e r e 660  The  the Teacher-School f a c t o r ,  m e d i a t i n g e f f e c t o f academic  factors  i n the  Teacher-School s e c t i o n s o f Gordon's S c a l e .  of  failures  scores.  sixth  of  the b a s i s o f grade  composite s e l f - c o n c e p t  M a n n - W h i t n e y t e s t was  gree  schools i s included  an  and  c o u l d be f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e two  the  faction.  fifth,  t h e Autonomy,. I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d e q u a c y ,  A d e q u a c y , and  In  students from  A description  I See M y s e l f S c a l e w e r e u s e d  significant differences their  school.  s t u d e n t s w e r e m a t c h e d on  S t a n f o r d Achievement G o r d o n ' s How  s i x t h grade  t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t o f 24 f o u r t h ,  students from a t r a d i t i o n a l  report.  in  and  self-  Subjects  structured  e i g h t h grade  environments  students) i n  system i n North C a r o l i n a .  The  open  ^ " J a n e R u e d i and C h a r l e s K. W e s t , "Pupil Self-Concept i n an "Open" S c h o o l and i n a " T r a d i t i o n a l S c h o o l , " P s y c h o l o g y i n the S c h o o l s 10 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 7 3 ) : 4 8 - 5 3 .  30 education present  programs had  study.  Pupil  been i n e f f e c t f o r s i x y e a r s a t t i t u d e s were a s s e s s e d  Attitude  Questionnaires,  assessed  as h i g h o r low  sibility  S c a l e o r IAR  R a t i n g F o r m was ditional  used  teachers.  and by  the I n t e l l e c t u a l  Scale.  The  Principal  The  a n a l y s i s of a t t i t u d e  was  Achievement and  the  Student  academic l o c u s of c o n t r o l  Respon-  Supervision from  toward  tra-  school  s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s  toward school l e a r n i n g processes. er, high i n t e r n a l s • experienced  As  b e t w e e n i n t e r n a l s and  expected  but  e x t e r n a l s i n the  a n a l y s i s of a t t i t u d e s towards teachers main e f f e c t w i t h i n t e r n a l s than  the  t h e r e was  freedom  no  traditional revealed a  research-  difference  setting.  The  significant  e x p r e s s i n g more f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s  did externals.  T h e r e was  i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n s t r u c t u r e and  t e r n a l s w e r e more s a t i s f i e d  by  a greater f e e l i n g of  about l e a r n i n g i n the open s e t t i n g ,  cant  the  to d i s t i n g u i s h open t e a c h e r s  showed t h a t h i g h I A R  towards teachers  by  p i o r to  with  their  also a  signifi-  locus of control. teachers  In-  i n open s e t -  35 tings.  This Arlin  attitudes semi-rural p a l and  t r e n d was  more p r o n o u n c e d f o r m a l e s t h a n  r e p o r t e d a second  i n o p e n and  study  traditional  county school  i n 1976  education  system i n North  S u p e r v i s i o n R a t i n g F o r m was  open t e a c h e r s  from  traditional  approximately  a t h o u s a n d f e m a l e s and  i n w h i c h he  examimed  classrooms  Carolina.  again used  teachers.  females;  to  Subjects  in a  The  Princi-  distinguish were  a thousand males  from  3'5  ^ Marshall Arlin, "The I n t e r a c t i o n o f L o c u s o f C o n t r o l , C l a s s r o o m S t r u c t u r e , and P u p i l S a t i s f a c t i o n , " P s y c h o l o g y i n - t h e S c h o o l s 12(3) ( J u l y 1975): 279-286.  31 f i r s t the  grade  open  towards in  the  The  through  classroom teachers  learning  pupils  eighth failed  or  open  favourable  attitudes  the  i n the  pupils  teachers, group  than  pupils  grades  the  surpassed  i n the  arithmetic, of the  open  however,  conducted  one  i n the  examines  i n Canada of  one  conclude  education the  the  present  time  inconclusive. support  teaching  a  and  consistently  The  three that  since  findings, Nor move  does back  learning, support  the  United  of  to  the  not  since  either  of  up  towards  i n  the  attitudes  the to,  the  these  upper or  For attitudes  attitudes  eleven  along  conducted  to  to  of  must  be  as  yet  that  open  educators  at  produced  any  as  counter methods  date  instructional  -^Marshall Arlin, "Open E d u c a t i o n and Elementary School Journal 76(14.) ( J a n u a r y  the  Gardner,  seen  traditional to  by  to  have  studies  with  show  date  differences type  by  pupils.  available  appear more  pupils  positive  caught  States,  therefore  there  than  attitudes  the  less  evidence  studies  and  of  studies  i s s t i l l the  arts  grades.  findings  body  freedom  classrooms.  reversed with  upper  the  a  more  language  favourable than  B r i t i s h  i s effective  contradictory  to  and  was  attitudes  less  However,  had  from  slightly  For  traditional  pattern  pupils  having  and  with  group.  the  less  findings must  the  as  language,  pupils  becoming  traditional When  of  favourable  exhibited  and  pupils  i n traditional  grades  open  that  classrooms.  traditional of  more  arithmetic  lower  attitudes  pupils  pupils  towards  attitudes the  than  classrooms  the  found  themselves  processes,  started  He  express  traditional  learning  open  to  perceive  process  i n the  grade.  do  evidence of  not  program.  Pupils'  1976):  Attitudes,"  220-228.  32 Research  Open  Space The  interest is  a  the  Research concept  and  type  two  to  describes school  open  school  areas  the  the  open  alone,  and  An  open  space  may  or  open  education i n the  While States  f o r close  Canada, large  i t has  number  student The  that  have  education classrooms  57  been  of  such been  during  appear  to have  cases  examined them  some  have  they  i n this been  of  size  open  outcomes  the  conducted  built  of  the  school.  programs can  vary  years  i n open than  might  be  open While  have by  that to  schools.  classed  as  of  stu-  open  space program,  the majority  school  a  t h e number  open  i n  examine  space  education  been  United  to ten years  studies, the an  i n the  studies  larger  not.  review  space  applicable-  schools  five  conducted  u t i l i z e d have  term  education  f o r close  i n what of  i n  within the  been  the last  i s much  conducted  self-  directly  space  from  house.  and  have  affective  In  open  have  years  studies  programs.  i n other  studies  number  only  of  The  i s not  I t  departure  ranging  u t i l i z e d  they  classrooms  to twenty  c o g n i t i v e and of  while  space  walls  traditional  of program  a  Canada.  physical characteristics  Thus,  of researchers  number  dies  type  open  house  and  both  i s composed  classrooms.  being  programs.  States  school  therefore  program  attracted  Instead  space  and  the instructional  has  States  represents  interior  to  greatly  schools  organization.  equivalent  school  the United  which  architectural  building  Schools  i n the United  without  30  over  Space  and  space  f a c i l i t y  classrooms,  instructional from  of  school  traditional  Open  i n Canada  controversy  of  contained  on  of  the  doctoral studies, boards  and  univer-  a  33 sity  researchers.  conducted were  i n  Canada  conducted This  divided  Approximately  i n  and  the  into  two  main  third  approximately  United  s e c t i o n on  a  of  two  the  studies  thirds  of  were  the  studies  States.  research  on  sections  as  1 .  Research  of. C o g n i t i v e  2.  Research  of  open  space  schools  w i l l  be  follows:  Outcomes  Noncognitive  i n  Outcomes  Open  Space  i n Open  Classrooms  Space  Classrooms Each parts  of  the  as  follows:  1.  Studies  above  sections  w i l l  which  Generally  be  Show  divided  into  three  Non-Significant  Findings 2.  Studies Space  3.  with  with  Traditional  on  Within which  the  compare  of  fifteen  produced nine  of  types  results the  i n of  of  built  31 i n  traditionally the  31  studies  between  school  which  studies  traditionally  Open  Favouring  i n Open Space  years,  achievement  difference"  two  Findings  Outcomes  seven  student  results  the  Favouring  Classrooms  last  achievement  from  Significant  Cognitive  student  significant  Findings  Classrooms  Studies  Research  Significant  open  the  results  classrooms.  have  space  built  two  open  groups Eight space  which  been  reported  classrooms,  classrooms.  generally  f a c i l i t i e s .  favoured  produced  the  studies  Classrooms  showed of of  The "no  students the  studies  classrooms,  favoured  with  the  and  3k Studies  which  One was  Generally  of the f i r s t  conducted  School 1I61  randomly  third,  rooms  instruction  ment  except  teraction was  between  higher  space  compared  grade  an open  Test  of Basic were  arithmetic  group,  Elementary  t h e achievement  space  school.  Both  When  S k i l l s  problems,  sex and f a c i l i t y .  and the average  o f  been  classroom o r a types  were  there  class-  regarding  compared  was a  classroom group  f o r  both  F o r every achieve-  The average  s c o r e f o rb o y s  o f  t h e achievement  not significant.  i n the traditional  outcomes  s t u d e n t s who h a d  and c l a s s r o o m management.  the differences  area  on cognitive  a t t h e Westwood  He  and f o u r t h  Findings  t h e same p h i l o s o p h y a n d r e g u l a t i o n s  on t h e Iowa  groups,  Texas.  studies  c l a s s r o o m i n t h e same  followed  scores  i n 1970  assigned to either  traditional  Non-Significant  reported  by Warner  i n Friendwood,  second,  Show  significant  i n -  score f o r g i r l s  than  i n t h e open  was h i g h e r  i n the  37 open  space  1971,  In f i r s t  group  year  t h e Iowa  samples  al  Johnson,  Test  school  selected  from  f o ra t o t a l  differences  were  found  S k i l l s  and f i f t h one open sample  reported  study i nMaryland.  on t h e M e t r o p o l i t a n  o f Basic grade  classroom group.  Schafer, and Rogers  was compared  o f third  randomly  i n the traditional  of a longitudinal  achievement and  than  f o reight grade  space  o f 88  a t the third  level school  students. grade  1  on the  Student  Achievement equal boys  Tests  sized suband  g i r l s  and one  tradition-  While  significant  level  which  favoured  •^Jack Bruce Warner, "A C o m p a r i s o n o f S t u d e n t s " a n d Teachers' Performance i n an Open-Area F a c i l i t y and i n SelfC o n t a i n e d C l a s s r o o m s ' , " , R e p o r t a n d F a c t S h e e t 0(8) (September  1971).  the  open  ences in  placement.  open middle  ed  using  achievement  in  design)  schools,  span  1971*  year  Education  using  and mathematics  and t h e Canadian  were  matched  were  compared  marginal  b a s i s .  differences  analysis  grade  f o re i t h e r  as a  students  traditional over  Test  Battery  adminis-  year  results  o f a  J  A b i l i t i e s  County  Board  grade  achievement  Test.  location.  of variance,  i n achievement  test-  environment  the Metropolitan  on IQ and geographic using  and f i f t h  the f i r s t  using  were  emerged.  looked a t f i r s t  Cognitive  school  When I Q was u s e d  s t u d y f o rt h e Y o r k  which  students at  i n d e s i g n and one  superiority  reported  longitudinal  Test  middle  t h e SRA A c h i e v e m e n t  Burnham  grade  their  and Say compared t h e  fourth,  (one open  school  a c h i e v e d beyond  eighth  S k i l l s .  differences  third,  no  i n Ontario  reading  a l l 90  year, Kennedy  schools  and found  however,  o f Basic  on a pretest-posttest In  in  Tests  d i f f e r -  favoured the traditional  and a t r a d i t i o n a l  o f second,  two matched  three  school  t h e same  in  tered  level  no s i g n i f i c a n t  During  one y e a r  Both  areas, the significant  I n addition,  t h e Iowa  covariate,  i n five  grade  subtests.  an  a  school  a t the f i f t h  five  grade  space  When  Achievement The  groups  t h e groups  i t was f o u n d  as discovered  o f  that  by test r e -  3®C. E . J o h n s o n , B . G . R o g e r s , a n d W. P . S c h a f e r , "Evaluation Reports o f t h e Model Elementary School and t h e Model M i d d l e S c h o o l o f Howard County M a r y l a n d 1970-71." ( M a r y l a n d : Howard C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 1971), (Mimeographed.) 3^V. J . K e n n e d y a n d M i c h a e l S a y , " C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e E f f e c t s o f Open-Area Versus Closed-Area Schools on t h e C o g n i t i v e G a i n s o f S t u d e n t s , " Report and F a c t Sheet 8(1Q (February 1971).  suits  were  neither 1973,  During year  that  second  and t h i r d  were  the marginal  neither  studies, 1  ^  1972,  students  from  schools  schools  were  the nine  1971  Habits  as discovered  tests  MacPherson  which  three  open  space  i n Saskatoon,  areas  years  third studies  atthe results  I n both  of h i s  i nh i s  Tests  a study  schools  o l da t t h e time  of Basic  later  earlier  t o a  I n regard  differences existed i n only of the traditional t o attitudes  space  obtained  a n d t h e 1972  to  Each from the  Survey o f  computerized  achievement,  one area, schools.  between  grade  t r a d i t i o n a l l y  The open  and attitude  S k i l l s  eighth  o f the study.  a n d A t t i t u d e s was s u b j e c t e d  relating  using  and three  Saskatchewan.  o f achievement  was i n f a v o u r  differences  of both  by test  he h a d used  conducted  way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e .  significant  The r e s u l t s  and  d i f f e r e n c e s i n achievement  level  t h e same  three  Canadian  Study  study.  on t h e second  2  In  built  grade  reported  consistent nor significant.  he used  study> >  one  Burnham  of h i s longitudinal  showed  of  consistent nor significant.^"*  vocabulary, No  significant  t h e two groups  were  ^ B r i a n Burnham, "Reading and Mathematics Achievement o f Grade 1 P u p i l s i n Open P l a n and A r c h i t e c t u r a l l y Conventional S c h o o l s . " ( O n t a r i o : Y o r k County" B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 1971). (Mimeographed.) ^ B r i a n Burnham, "Reading, Spelling, and Mathematics Achievement o f Grade 2 P u p i l s i n Open P l a n a n d A r c h i t e c t u r a l l y Conventional Schools." (Ontario: York County Board o f E d u c a t i o n , 1971), (Mimeographed.) ^- Brian Burnham, "Reading and Mathematics Achievement o f Grade 3 P u p i l s i n Open P l a n a n d A r c h i t e c t u r a l l y Conventional Schools." (Ontario: York County Board o f Education, 1973), (Mimeographed.) 2  37 found.^  3  In fourth, School  1972,  Joiner  sixth,  and n i n t h  performance  system  and found  groups  was  kindergarten  Attitudinal  o f "the open  intelligence by  school  year,  were  no  Scheirer  from  one  using  I n d i c a t o r about classroom  500  with  S t . Paul between  The  open  open  Open  the  school  t h e two space  school  students  from  a l l 1163  second,  space  schools.  ^ M u r d o c k MacPherson, (Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan (Mimeographed.)  and  five  months When  self-concept positive  five  Achievement  I n d i c a t o r and the after  Children's the  the effects  status  d i f f e r e n c e s were  less  school  the Stanford  socio-economic  both  significantly  tested  methods."  significant  However,  the traditional  different.  third,  the S t . Paul  of operation,  achievement  Self-Concept  and p a r e n t a l  covariance,  achievement.  in  Range  year  from  of f i r s t ,  g r a d e . ^  schools  the Children's  students  of approximately  and f o u r t h graders built  the achievement  within the entire  academic  school  t h e same  traditionally  tion  that  to twelfth  During  Tests,  level  not significantly  a nongraded  third,  grade  a t t h e end o f i t s f i r s t  average  was  compared  were  of  controlled  found  i n  and a t t i t u d e i n t h e open  i n i t i a -  toward  school  than  ii5  ^  "Open Space S c h o o l s i n S a s k a t o o n . " S c h o o l T r u s t e e s ' A s s o c i a t i o n , 1972),  ^ L e e M. J o i n e r . S t . P a u l Open S c h o o l : Public Schools (Bethesda, Md.: E R I C D o c u m e n t S e r v i c e , E D 072 133, 1972).  The S t . P a u l Reproduction  ^ M a r y Ann S c h e i r e r , "A S t u d y o f t h e E f f e c t s o f O p e n Classroom Education on C h i l d r e n s ' Achievement, Self-Concept a n d A t t i t u d e s " ( M . A . T h e s i s , B i n g h a m t o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1972).  38 In  1972,  comparative  McPartland, Epstein,  study using  students  enrolled  had  drawn  be for  been  from  controlling academic  two  as  a  as  a  performance,  i n adjustment  grades,  discipline, subjected a  1972  personalized Albion, learning jects. jects  doctoral  males  study, Walker  i n an  Test  he  different  and females  earlier differences  t h e two  types  school.  The  by data  analysis.  compared  the effects  of  "open-learning environment" i n  f o r f i r s t ,  second,  and t h i r d  mean  of  as measured  i n a  was  was  found  were  and  reading  Battery  be  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  text  group  could  arrangement"  could  significant  with  students  of which  space  school  a  grade  The  After  regression  randomly  When  the  administered  that  neither  achievement compared,  "traditional-  matched  on t h e b a s i s  age, sex, and race.  a l l subjects,  ficantly  no  satisfaction  i n the experimental group  Achievement  one  variables  high  to multiple  control  chronological  to  found  M i c h i g a n , and b a s a l  The  school."  to junior  environment"  school.  an open  of students from  and  reading  high  schools,  using  conducted  o f ii7 s e v e n t h  and the other which  they  schools  In  school  f o r student background  t h e two groups  been  junior  traditional  between  had  sample  elementary  a c t i v i t i e s ,  "characterized  total  i n t h e same  "characterized learning  a  and M c D i l l  sub-  t o t h e 85  sub-  o f grade  level,  Metropolitan  as  a  program  i n any  grade  pretest-posttest produced  subject  significant  area.  differences  signiWhen were  ^ J a m e s M c P a r t l a n d , Joyce E p s t e i n , and Edward L. M c D i l l . S t u d e n t R e a c t i o n s t o t h e T r a n s i t i o n f r o m Open E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l t o J u n i o r H i g h S c h o o l : A C a s e S t u d y ( B e t h e s d a . MP.: ERIC D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , E D 069 O l i O , 1972).  found  which  group  on  males  i n the  third  grade  Word  favoured the  the  subtest, control females  there  were  classes  which  approach i n a  Rhode  to  Island  the  on  females  f o r Sounds,  the  subtest,  i n the the  control  second  Reading,  e x p e r i m e n t a l group  determine  When  test  ance,  results  groups  and  formal  Reading  individualized with  on  grade  and  the  the  subtest,  pretested the  were  S u b t e s t , and  this  Early  a n a l y z e d by no  Aural  on  space  the  School  both  group  Word  higher scored  was  used  groups. of  vari-  f o r the  reading  and  of  Achievement  differences three  teachers  Reading  analysis  the  i n s i x  sample  a  Comprehension,  open  space  The  using  way  instruct-  f o r a l lteachers  of  scored significantly the  were  quotients  significant and  experience  Primary Test  one  and  space  classes  open  measure.  posttested  Stanford  attitude  who  formal  the  whether  i n s i x open  "obtained  with  intelligence  attitude  classes  and  reading  children  Pintner-Cunningham  were  Sounds,  on  investigate  language  i n s i x more  Scores  higher  indicated  i n reading  (Letters  children  grade  Observation Scale  The  to  f i r s t  series  t h e mean  results  i n 1973 i n the  compared  I n v e n t o r y and I I .  study  differences  an  as  significantly  Level  a  communities.  Classroom  Attitude Test,  of  reading  s t u d e n t s was  more  i n the  u t i l i z e d  reading  basal  scoring  to  group  significant  achievement  188  Listening  conducted  reading  on  grade  Knowledge.^ Crandall  ed  f i r s t  two  subtestsMeaning).  i n the  The  Sentence  significantly  ^ J e s s Morgan Walker, "A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y o f P e r s o n a l i z e d R e a d i n g i n an Open-Learning Environment and B a s a l T e x t Reading i n a Traditional-Learning Environment through Early E l e m e n t a r y P u p i l A c h i e v e m e n t " ( P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n State University, 1972).  J h i g h e r o n t h e o t h e r t w o s u b t e s t s.^I n 1973, Olson  ft  compared t h e a c h i e v e m e n t , a t t i t u d e ,  personal orientation,  l e a d e r s h i p , and conduct between  h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s who h a d a t t e n d e d a traditional  ^0 inter-  junior  a n open space s c h o o l and  s e l f - c o n t a i n e d s c h o o l . The N e b r a s k a S t u d e n t  A t t i t u d e S c a l e was a d m i n i s t e r e d from each type  t o 50 r a n d o m l y s e l e c t e d  o f s c h o o l i n May when t h e y w e r e s t i l l  i n the  s i x t h g r a d e , a n d a g a i n i n S e p t e m b e r when t h e y e n t e r e d h i g h s c h o o l , and f o r a t h i r d time  students  junior  a t t h e end o f s e v e n t h  grade.  I n a d d i t i o n , t h e SRA A c h i e v e m e n t T e s t s were a d m i n i s t e r e d a t the beginning  and end o f s e v e n t h  grade.  While t h i s  study  r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n a c a d e m i c achievement between students  f r o m t h e two t y p e s  of schools,  boys from t h e s e l f - c o n t a i n e d s c h o o l d i d score h i g h e r on a l l s i x initial  s u b - t e s t s o f t h e SRA A c h i e v e m e n t S e r i e s .  Inaddition,  b o y s f r o m t h e s e l f - c o n t a i n e d s c h o o l h a d more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s t h a n t h e b o y s f r o m t h e o p e n s p a c e s c h o o l when t h e y Kg high  entered  school.^ During  the f o l l o w i n g year,  u s e d a l a r g e sample o f o v e r students  )  2,000 f o u r t h a n d s e v e n t h  from open space s c h o o l s .  Canadian Testa  S p i g e l reported a study  of Basic S k i l l s .  which  grade  D a t a were c o l l e c t e d u s i n g t h e Study f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d that  ft  ^ A u d r e y H a c k e t t C r a n d a l l , "A C o m p a r i s o n o f R e a d i n g A t t i t u d e a n d R e a d i n g A c h i e v e m e n t among F i r s t G r a d e C h i l d r e n i n Open C o n c e p t a n d M o r e F o r m a l C l a s s e s " ( P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C o n n e c t i c u t , 1973). C u r t i s Olson, "A C o m p a r i s o n S t u d y I n v o l v i n g A c h i e v e ment a n d A t t i t u d e s o f J u n i o r H i g h S c h o o l S t u d e n t s f r o m , a n OpenConcept E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l and a S e l f - C o n t a i n e d E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l " ( E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f N e b r a s k a , 1973).  ill there  were  no s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e s i nachievement  between  50 students  from  self-concept from  each  ally  b u i l t  ment  f a c i l i t i e s .  for  selected  schools  a total  achievement and  f o u r t h grade  and each  the  posttest  differences  York data  Pupil  period  using  attributed Using  t o type  compared  seven  open  selected  schools collected  Comprehensive Instruction  o f f i r s t ,  Tests  student  and seven using  Inventory,  matched  S k i l l s ,  Climate  Descriptive Questionnaire.  pendent  samples,  achievement,  daily  took AchieveScale  significant  o r self-concept o f  51  and third  traditional  grade  students,  variablesi n schools.  Achievement  Test, t h e  t h eI n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n o f  and Croft's Using  no s i g n i f i c a n t  attendence,  no  and environmental  andHalpin  he found  were  t h eC a l i f o r n i a  o f Basic  Testing  An analysis o f  f a c i l i t y .  second,  tradition-  Self-Concept  achievement  o f school  students  the' M e t r o p o l i t a n  Scale.  there  t h eacademic  a sample  Pitts  Self-Concept  indicated that  between  o f s i x  o f 3&0 s t u d e n t s .  and t h eP i e r s - H a r r i s C h i l d r e n ' s  t h eN o r t h  were  space  an .eight month  and  Data  30 r a n d o m l y  using  schools  Tests,  o f school  i n v e s t i g a t e d academic  o f s i x open  over  pupils  two types  197J+, B l a c k  In  place  the  Organizational  t h et - t e s t  f o r  inde-  d i f f e r e n c e s i n academic  o r organizational climates.^  2  ^ J . Spigel. Open A r e a S t u d y (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , E D 091 8 5 0 , 1 9 7 i i ) . G  -^Strathearn Murray Black, "Academic Achievement and Self-Concept o f F o u r t h G r a d e P u p i l s i nOpen A r e a a n d T r a d i t i o n a l L e a r n i n g E n v i r o n m e n t s " ( P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, 197k)^ J o e M. P i t t s , "A C o m p a r i s o n o f S e l e c t e d S t u d e n t a n d Environmental V a r i a b l e s i nOpen-Area a n d T r a d i t i o n a l l y C o n s t r u c t e d E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l s " ( E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , N o r t h T e x a s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971+-). 2  k2 In of  an  197^.,  "open  classroom  instructional 250  sample  i n this  students  in  self-concept,  ment the  between  Self-Concept  year  he  Self-Concept  with  t o compare  program"  and a  found  no  grade  "traditional  two y e a r  Using  differences  and academic  t e s t i n g measures  Scale,  the Piers-Harris  Tests,  the  study.  significant  school,  Approxi-  comprised  The  the "Faces"  the effect  of Pennsylvania.  to sixth  a t t i t u d e toward  Test.  study  of a planned  design,  Scale,  Achievement Studies  f i r s t  t h e two groups.  P i c t o r i a l  a  i n the state  from  f i r s t  pretest-posttest  conducted  instructional  program"  mately  a  Reynolds  and the  achieve-  used  were  Children's  Stanford  53  S i g n i f i c a n t Findings  Favouring  Open  Space  Classrooms 1971,  In the  achievement  school  i n Texas  selected Science ed  from  o f 150 with  four  Research  were  data  showed  significantly  variables After  tested  three  years  a  from  study one  the achievement  Associates  generated that  pupils  traditional  to a l l subjects,  ries  had  K i l l o u g h conducted  i n which  nongraded  o f 150  schools.  Achievement  he  open  pupils  An  compared space  randomly  IQ  test  Series  were  and t h e administer-  a n d ILO f a c t o r i a l  analyses  of variance  over  period.  H i s analysis  after  four  two y e a r s  better than  a  year  i n an open  achievement  d i d the pupils  i n t h e open  space  gains  space  school,  i n four  they  d i d  of pupils  of the  i n the traditional school,  summa-  five  schools.  s i g n i f i -  53 R o b e r t N. R e y n o l d s . A Comparative Evaluation of the E f f e c t s o f an Open Classromm I n s t r u c t i o n a l Program and a T r a d i t i o n a l I n s t r u c t i o n a l P r o g r a m ( B e t h e s d a , Md.: ERIC D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , E D 093 9 0 7 , 197^4-) •  Ii3 cantly to  better  find  i n three  of the five  any s i g n i f i c a n t  variables tested.  interaction  between  He  sex and  failed  treatment  5k groups.  ^  The the  achievement  open  space  Middle, found and  and High  that  In Michigan  Model  Schools,  category.  tests  However,  Howard  County  1972,  Poppink  which  had a large  i n the school, comparison  recorded  b y t h e open  prior  u t i l i z e d  Schools  100  of Basic  Test  of Mental  but also  program.  Experiences, A b i l i t y ,  group  Maryland  Elementary,  schools.  They middle,  high  county-  mean  and were  scores near  open  space  space  be a  with  stu-  A pretest-  so t h a t  compared control  The t e s t  and t h e Purdue  schools  O f t h e 185  origin.  employed  the Stanford  t o  school i n  enrollment.  with  failed  testing.  an open  could  on  the topi n  the researchers  was  compared  one e l e m e n t a r y , one  of Indian  design  space  a traditional  Test  were  group  achievement,  Indian  County,  County  o f 28  before  evaluated  and Schafer  Howard  Howard  f o ra total  achievement  posttest  their  three  a l lother  Schools  Rogers,  on t h e c o m p a r a b i l i t y o f t h e model  other  dents  Johnson,  school, had relatively  grouping  report  with  a l lthree  standardized  their  year,  o f p u p i l s from  schools  one h i g h  wide  the  following  the  not only  group  measures  Achievement Psycho-Motor  gains  used  with  which were t h e  Test,  the Otis  Survey.  He  -^Charles Kyle Killough, "An A n a l y s i s o f t h e L o n g i t u d i n a l E f f e c t s that a Nongraded Elementary Program, Conducted i n an Open-Space S c h o o l , Had on t h e C o g n i t i v e Achievement o f P u p i l s " ( E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f H o u s t o n , T e x a s , 1 9 7 1 ) . ^ C . E . J o h n s o n , B . G. R o g e r s , a n d W. P . S c h a f e r , "A Comparative Study o f t h e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e Howard County Model Open-Space S c h o o l s . " (Maryland: Howard County Board o f E d u c a t i o n , 1972), (Mimeographed.)  found  that  t h e open  space  measured  achievement  compared  with  were  number  open  space  making  On m o s t  progress  o f t h e achievement  achievement  record.  normal  group  were  control  i n test  Greatest  while  gains  Experiences,  greater beyond  o f the Stanford  had not  their  been  group  showed  significantly  compared,  made of  Tests  group  were  by the  the gains  Achievement  space  were  made  open by  s i g n i f i -  showed  i n four higher  the control  t o  i n math-  t h e .01 l e v e l  f o rthe control  IQ gains  to  the gains  than  gains  When  equal  Prior  s t u d i e s , and language  and extended  o f  f o rt h e two groups  higher  t h e open  gain.was  students  results  significantly  The r e s u l t s  area.  When  their  i n school.  o f these  of Basic  social  group,  significantly  had been  many  progress.  science,  cance.  they  experience,  ematics, space  of the sub-tests,  o f months  on the Test  one  significant  on a l lsections prior  compared  the  made  i n mathematical a p p l i c a t i o n s and i n t h e development  vocabulary. the  their  group  areas,  gains i n  group  gained  56 four  months  while  During year  study  students three The  t h e same  which  Canadian  Progressive  space  year,  compared  i n three  randomly  students  t h e open  Nash  and C h r i s t i e  randomly  s e l e c t e d open  selected traditional  Tests  o f Basic  Matrices  were  gained  Skills  was b e t t e r i n t h e open  space  schools  reported f i f t h schools  i n Sudbury,  and t h e Raven  administered They  s i x months.  o f 157  the achievement  i n t h e s i xs c h o o l s .  achievement  group  concept  that  grade and Ontario.  Standard  t o a l lf i f t h  reported  a one  grade  " i n general,  schools,  markedly  56 William Poppink. E v a l u a t i o n ; Open Concept S c h o o l f o r I n d i a n E d u c a t i o n ( B e t h e s d a , Md.; ERIC D o c u m e n t Reproduction S e r v i c e , ED 091 1 1 6 , 1 9 7 2 ) .  so  i n areas  There  were  Spelling  of no  was  vocabulary, significant  s l i g h t l y  work  study  s k i l l s  and  mathematics."  differences i n reading  poorer  i n the  open  areas,  a b i l i t y . and  punctuation  57 "marginally" 1973,  In the  Sudbury,  grade  poorer. Nash  and  Ontario schools  students  i n one  achievement  of  traditional  schools.  in  their  ment  f i f t h  earlier  scores  Christie  for  open grade  the  i n which space  the  they  open  i n  same  found  space  the  school  students  Using  study,  conducted  a  students  study  achievement  was  compared  three  tests  that  second  the  of  f i f t h  with  the  randomly  that  they  were  selected' had  overall  i n  used  achieve-  significantly  ^8 better  than 1973,  In using  third  student sample grade  scores Allen  grade  and  consisted of students.  personnel. classroom  Achievement A p p r a i s57a l  schools  Scale.  were  A  School  one-way  i n B r i t i s h which  students  matched by  the  on  Columbia  total  and  355  f i f t h  the  basis  school  given  at  His  administered" by  directions  students.-^  looked  self-esteem.  grade  Cooperative the  and  were  traditional  students  provided  following  the  Test,  data  the  study  grade  third  batteries  teachers  included  L|37  using  Test  f i f t h  by a  attitude,  The  status  obtained  conducted  performance,  economic  These  the  regular  the  researcher.  Primary  Tests,  the  Stanford  Sentiment  Index,  and  the  analysis of  variance  socio-  d i s t r i c t  the  by  of  was  Selfused  to  B . C. N a s h a n d T . G. C h r i s t i e , "Sudbury Board of E d u c a t i o n Open S c h o o l s P r o j e c t . " ( S u d b u r y , O n t a r i o : The Ontario I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n , May 1972), ( M i m e o g r a p h e d . )  58  B. Alexander P Outcomes." Studies i n  C . N a s h a n d T. G. C h r i s t i e , "Comparison of u b l i c S c h o o l w i t h 3 Non-Open S c h o o l s : Programmes ( S u d b u r y , O n t a r i o : The O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r E d u c a t i o n , May 1973), ( M i m e o g r a p h e d . )  and  life compare cant  groups.  and  attitude group. formed  only  At  the  In 322  their  f i f t h  a  study,  intermediate  controlled  school  open  thermal  space  Achievement analysis cant of  Test  and  on  as  two  a pretest which  and  students  grade  level  arithmetic favoured there  there  the  was  concepts,  the open  were  space  At  sixth  students  per-  learning.  not  s i g n i f i c a n t . ^  academic  achievement  conventional  nonthermal  level  students  Using  the  established that t h e two there  no  he  A  s i g n i f i -  comparison  significant  favoured  school.  used  i n i t i a l  a  an  Stanford  groups. was  i n  At  the  the  third  fourth  d i f f e r e n c e i n word  meaning,  arithmetic applications which students.  At  the f i f t h  grade  differences i n arithmetic  applications which the  space  p o s t t e s t measure,  significant  and  the open  a t t i t u d e s toward  the  conventional  a  significant  arithmetic  students.  from  subtests,  subtests,  i n a  scores" showed -t h a t  s i g n i f i -  self-appraisal  space  i n arithmetic computation which  grade  the  no  achievement  were  school.  were  favoured  the  intermediate  d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between  the posttest  of  compared  controlled  on  the open  students  280  there  attitude  which  subtests  H i l l  or  the  favourable  level  of variance  difference  and  less  a l lother  1973  level  better  t o have on  teachers,  grade  level  tests  d i f f e r e n c e on  significantly  appeared  grade  achievement  one  towards  Differences  of  the third  d i f f e r e n c e s on  scale,  but  At  grade  favoured  level  there  computation  the open were  no  level  space significant  an A l l e n , "Student Performance, A t t i t u d e , and SelfEsteem i n Open-Area and S e l f - G o n t a i n e d C l a s s r o o m s , The A l b e r t a J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h 20 ( M a r c h 1971+): 1-7.  differences  1975,  In System or  between  greater group  Schnee  conducted  t h e team  t h e two groups  a  and Park  study  teaching  achievement  to determine  groups growth  that than  schools.  Two  while  ditional  classroom building.  ventional  comparison  groups  Basic  were  second, was  teaching  used  fourth,  used had a  Test  and s i x t h  in  the open  in  achievement  t h e second  group  s c h o o l s were  i n a l lthree grades.  arithmetic  had  and  sixth  significantly  control  student  positive  students i n a l lthree grades.  groups  using  open  Their  grade.  of  space  four  the groups  significant  could  open  School space i n  control ele-  i n d e s i g n and program  i n a  tra-  schools had  con-  design resulted  i n  students  The  each. Tests  achievement  When  and/  eight  and t h e Comprehensive  t o measure  t o compare  City  o c c u r r e d among  classrooms  The  0  i tresulted  o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 300  Achievement  ance  what  with  and environments.  Metropolitan  the  came  two o f t h e s c h o o l s had an open  programs  S k i l l s  whether  o f t h e s c h o o l s were  program,  four  o f t h e Oklahoma  students i n self-contained  mentary  of students/*  analysis  of  gains i n  of  i t was  found  effect  on the reading gains  The  that  covari-  r e a d i n g means  numerically  No  significant  be  found  larger  team  of students  than  differences  between  grade.  I n the fourth  greater  growth  the other i n  any o f the  groups  grade,  control  i n arithmetic  the than  the ex61  perimental  groups.  I t was  their  f i r s t  year  i n team  teaching.  60 J e r r y Glynn Matthews H i l l , "A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y o f Academic Achievement o f I n t e r m e d i a t e L e v e l S t u d e n t s i n an Open C o n c e p t S c h o o l a n d a C o n v e n t i o n a l S c h o o l " ( E d . D. dissertation, McNeese U n i v e r s i t y , 1973).  61  R o n a l d G. S c h n e e a n d J o e P a r k , "The Open S c h o o l I m p r o v e s E l e m e n t a r y R e a d i n g S c o r e s i n O k l a h o m a City.,"' P h i D e l t a K a p p a n L V I ( J a n u a r y 1975): 366-367.  LL8 Studies  with  Significant  Findings  Favouring Traditional  Class-  rooms In found  1971  a  3ii  that  study i n Vancouver, open  space  students entering  achieved  at a  lower  students  from  traditionally  sults one open  of traditional  space In  reading es  a replication achievement  and t r a d i t i o n a l  grade  tested  sixth  concept tained  group  later,  Sackett  grade  s t u d e n t s i n one  school  Test  he  showed  t h e open  that  school,  that  the  group.  compared  open  speed  after  space  0 £ :  the class-  and accuracy,  at the seventh  However,  the groups  when  tended  to  open  space  grade  school  and  space  S k i l l s .  the  An  s t u d e n t s were  self-  self-con-  I n order  the Lorge-Thorndike  of Basic  achievement  with  students i n a  school.  were r e -  disappear.^  the self-concept  administered  that  found  l o w e r on one o f t h e  of sixth  Test  to ther e -  significantly  compared  and t h e Iowa  selected  to the control  areas,  and a departmentalized  achievement  He  study, Moodie  the differences  1971,  according  i n secondary  and found  was  school  randomly  Test.  up  McRae  secondary  students from  i n three  and accuracy.  and achievement  variance  to catch  Columbia,  2h  schools  o f t h e McRae  classes  than  Reading  o f Vancouver  space  speed  a year In  gence  built  and comprehension,  t h e open  subtests,  pare  i n reading  instruction  students tended  vocabulary,  of  level  of the Gates-MacGinitie  year  B r i t i s h  to  com-  I n t e l l i -  analysis  of  significantly  62 •B. C. M c R a e , Reading Achievement." S c h o o l B o a r d , 1970),  " E f f e c t s o f Open-Area I n s t r u c t i o n on (Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: Vancouver (Mimeographed.)  A . G. M o o d i e , "A S u r v e y o f R e a d i n g A c h i e v e m e n t i n a Secondary School Population." (Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: V a n c o u v e r S c h o o l B o a r d , 1971), (Mimeographed.)  1+9 lower  i n achievement  students results school  and  were  not significantly  1971,  grade  Townsend  open  grade  space pupils  departmentalized  covariance  areas  that  there  school  a 1971  examined  t o test  the Stanford  school  schools.  He  years  Achievement  growth  were  presented  standardized habits,  tests,  groups  instruction  grade from  a c t i v i t i e s ,  results subject  ^  study,  E l l i s  population  that  i none  feeder  had received space  school.  achievement  performance,  library  and  and t h e depart-  i n an open  t a r d i n e s s , academic  The  different  t o attendance,  i n l e a r n i n g , and maturity  Test  i n more  school.  Columbia  o f an eighth  i n regard  extra-curricular  ^"John W i Achievement o f Self-Contained dissertation, U  space  a t t e n t i o n on one group  o f continuous  o f second and a  hypotheses.  achievement  B r i t i s h  by comparing  focused  o f second and  An a n a l y s i s o f variance  i n t h e open  the performance  departmentalized  t h e achievement  the null  was b e t t e r  than  and that the  self-contained school  using  Vancouver,  secondary  dence  and t h e  t h e achievement  pupils with i n a  students,  by children i n the self-contained school  In  Data  compared  school  was u s e d  mentalized  three  school  school  d i f f e r e n t . ^  a pretest-posttest design.  showed  the self-contained  f o rt h e s e l f - c o n t a i n e d s c h o o l  sixth  with  either  o r the departmentalized  In sixth  than  usage,  i n deportment.  The  on  work indepenresults  lliam Sackett, "Comparison o f Self-Concept and S i x t h Grade Students i n a n Open Space School, School, and Departmentalized S c h o o l " ( P h . D. n i v e r s i t y o f Iowa, 1971).  J a m e s W. T o w n s e n d , "A C o m p a r i s o n o f T e a c h e r S t y l e a n d P u p i l A t t i t u d e and Achievement i n C o n t r a s t i n g S c h o o l s - Open Space, Departmentalized, a n d S e l f - C o n t a i n e d " ( E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f K a n s a s , 1971). p  50 r e v e a l e d " s u p e r i o r performance" i n most areas by the students of the t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l , whereas the open space students 66 appeared "above average" i n performance. A F l o r i d a study was r e p o r t e d by the Broward School Board i n 1972.  Third, f i f t h ,  County  and e i g h t h grade p u p i l  achievement r e s u l t s f o r the 1970-71 s c h o o l year were c o n t r a s t ed i n terms o f type o f s c h o o l p l a n t s u s i n g the county wide t e s t r e s u l t s o f the C a l i f o r n i a Test o f B a s i c S k i l l s and the C a l i f o r n i a Test o f B a s i c M a t u r i t y .  A n a l y s i s o f the r e s u l t s  indi-  cated t h a t students from the open space schools performed b e s t a t the t h i r d grade l e v e l w i t h boys b e t t e r than . girls.  O v e r a l l r e s u l t s tended i n the d i r e c t i o n o f f a v o u r i n g  open space schools f o r b l a c k s , and c o n v e n t i o n a l schools f o r whites. the  Students from the c o n v e n t i o n a l schools d i d b e t t e r on  t e s t at the f i f t h grade l e v e l , p a r t i c u l a r l y white males.  T e s t s g i v e n to e i g h t h grade students a l s o f a v o u r e d the convent i o n a l s c h o o l f o r a l l sex/race groups except b l a c k male students.  D i f f e r e n c e s i n a b i l i t y l e v e l s o f p u p i l s were taken  i n t o account i n a l l r e p o r t e d analyses.^7 In 1973, Grapkp r e p o r t e d a comparative study conducted i n two Grey County schools i n O n t a r i o . the  U s i n g the r e s u l t s o f  Canadian T e s t s o f B a s i c S k i l l s , he compared the c o g n i t i v e  E . N. E l l i s , "A Comparative Study o f the Performance i n Grade 8 o f a Secondary School of Vancouver o f Students from D i f f e r e n t Elementary Feeder S c h o o l s . " (Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: Vancouver School Board, 1971), (Mimeographed.) 6 6  67 'Broward County S c h o o l Board. E v a l u a t i o n o f I n n o v a t i v e S c h o o l s : Student Achievement. 1970-71 (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e , ED 069 7l+0, 1972).  51growth  of  school  and  the  a l l sixth a  space  school  opened  performance,  year  attendance  ences  were  either  noted  open  children  school,  classrooms  pupils' of  students  traditional  traditional  open  grade  who  space  attending  the  f o r  most  the  space  open  an  the  space pupils  academically. results part  were  were  classrooms, school  Since  based  IQ  the  no  the  third d i f f e r -  children lower  performed  i n  on  i n their  While  between higher  space  open  that  classrooms.  traditional  the  found  i n 1970  achievement  or  and  did better  i n open on  attending  i n  IQ  s i g n i f i -  68 cantly  below  the  Research that  f i r s t  classrooms second  conducted  did  not  as  study  their  These  included  visual,  and  social  Recognition  and  the  the  children  of  i n reading  with  i n the year,  which general  Winnipeg s k i l l s  the  academic  a l l of  measured  the  intelligence,  In  progressed  through  the  f i r s t  and  Their progress  were  f i r s t  and  suburban were  visual-motor perception,  Test,  administered second  and  Schonell  Vocabulary  Test,  of  variables.v  addition,. the  Gates-MacGinitie Reading  space  children  several  competency.  Primary  open  same m i d d l e - c l a s s  kinesthetic  the  as  indicated  classrooms.  a u d i t o r y and  Test,  Cooperative  from  classrooms.  i n 1973  Switzer  traditional  schools  tests  and  concerned  tests  i n traditional  children  kindergarten  battery of  coordination,  B e l l  well  from  was  i n two  a  Word  do  children  given  linguistic  by  grade  beginners In  children  second  grade  area.  IQ  and  longitudinal 338  lower  as  grade.  68 tio in Var tut  Michael Grapko, "A C o m p a r i s o n o f O p e n S p a c e a n d T r a d i n a l Classroom Structures According to Independence Measures Children, Teachers' Awareness of Children's P e r s o n a l i t y i a b l e s and C h i l d r e n ' s Academic P r o g r e s s . " (Toronto: I n s t i e o f C h i l d S t u d y and G r e y C o u n t y B o a r d , 1973), (Mimeographed.)  52 The  c h i l d r e n from  curriculum  as on  dergarten  showed  scores  data  were  twice the  as  the  of  test no  the  analyzed many  norms  schools  outlined f o r  treatment  mean  both  the  battery  followed  the  Manitoba  schools.  administered  significant groups f o r  i n reading  any  variable.  f i r s t  and  second  tests  at  Arts  S t a t i s t i c a l  the  end  of  difference occurring  on  c h i l d r e n i n the  Language  open  than  grade,  space  their  When  between  achievement  they  school  kin-  found  scored  counterparts  i n  that  below the  69 traditional  1 97l+,  In change  of  using  sex  type  of  1,236  a  The  ance  was  ferences space.  grade  used.  i n English or from  achieved  more  i n  ninth  from  open  space  from  usage,  and  open  and  and  teachers,  science  elementary  a  nonopen  and  space  mathematics schools..-  high  Analysis no i n  reading and  science, of  covari-  significant open  elementary than  i n  science,  mathematics,  were  by  population  posttested  achievement  nonopen  grade  there  space  s t r a t i f i e d  selected from  mathematics,  that  affective nonopen  students,  administrators.  found  the  space  pretested  school,  I t . was  200  school,  were  E n g l i s h , and  c o g n i t i v e and  open  of  students  language  Students  the  sample  elementary  a t t i t u d e s toward  counsellors,  the  experiencing  students  comprehension, for  compared  random  of  ninth  schools.  Jones  students  classes and  classrooms.  the  Regardless  or  dif-  nonopen  school students of  treat-  6-9 A n n e E. B e l l and F r e d S w i t z e r , "Factors Related to Pre-School P r e d i c t i o n of Academic Achievement: Beginning Reading i n Open-Area vs T r a d i t i o n a l Classroom Systems," Manitoba J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n 8(2) ( J u n e 1973): 21-27.  53 ment,  students  attitudes  1  Research  on  were  Noncognitive  Space  The rested  proponents  their  outcomes  as  case  claims  independence,  creativity,  curiosity,  self-concept.  remained  largely  to  an  the researcher  cognitive  years  more  these and  noncognitive  developed  over  twenty  have  been  these  Until  a r e much h a r d e r  As  a  result,  a s s e r t i o n s has  and  a  students remaining  from  of twelve  t h e two  such  noncognitive  no  the last i n this of  studies,  of  enter  into  d i f f i c u l t y  t o measure  than  to  But, within their  instruments  on  have  As  i n open  years.  recent  attention  of variables.  five  a  have  evidence  outcomes  a  result,  space  schools  Twenty-five  of  section.  these  "significant  types  and  claims  meagre.  o f new  learning,  greater  focused  types  noncognitive  within  show  thirteen  been  number  these  pose  empirical  researchers have  t o measure  or  largely  variables  they  s t u d i e s on  inconclusive  so many  since  conducted  have  towards  these  variables  more  results  of  attitudes  recently  because  studies are reviewed The  superiority  such  outcomes,  been  of  classrooms  and  outcomes.  corroborate  space  positive  untested  assessment,  i n Open  persistence, responsibility,  positive  such  Outcomes  Classrooms  o f open  on  positive.  school  s t u d i e s have difference" f a c i l i t i e s .  the results  of  eleven  tended between Of of  to the  the the  7°William L a n e J o n e s , "Comparison o f C o g n i t i v e and A f f e c t i v e Change o f N i n t h Grade S t u d e n t s i n Open-Space and Closed-Space C l a s s e s " ( E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , A r i z o n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971+).  be  studies of  favoured  two  of  the  the  open  studies  space  favoured  classrooms, the  while  the  t r a d i t i o n a l l y  results  b u i l t  classroom.  Studies  which  One  of  cognitive School  f i f t h  the  f i r s t  outcomes,  Board  Specific  Generally  d i t i o n a l  sixth plan  curiosity analysis  was  grade  the  the  data  163  space  schools,  one  which  had  opened,  they  found  that  positively pupils they  i n  and the  ranked  significant  had two  1969'  by  curiosity  one  open  area the  of  non-  Halton  County  questionnaires,  were  administered  area  and  one  d i f f e r e n c e s were  were  Wilson,  had and  subjected  -Langevin,  year  old  been  open  two  to  a  to  tra-  found  i n  one-way  two  the  traditional on  d i f f e r e n c e s were  two  s i x years  and  one  schools  using  a  rated  they  creativity found  Torrance  also  the  While  school  than found  measures.  between  o p e n .,  Minnesota  their  self-concepts  schools,  com-  using  questionnaires.  students  s l i g h t l y better  lower  f o r  curiosity  space  and-Stuckey  students  traditional  questionnaire,  open  somewhat  the  1  and  the  i n  Findings  i n  Curiosity,  results  that  Creativity,  two  i n  significant  twelve  d i f f e r e n t i a l  of  When  year,  pared  just  and  reported  Reactive  no  same  eleven  conducted  students  variance.?  During  Test  one  and  school,  when of  semantic  studies  i n Ontario.  Curiosity  and  Show N o n - S i g n i f i c a n t  two  more  the that  No groups  on  ? Halton County Board of Education, "Evaluation Committee of the Innovations Council." (Oakville, Ontario: Halton County Board of Education, J u n e 1969), ( M i m e o g r a p h e d . ) 1  55 • the  two c u r i o s i t y  middle-class  seven  suburban  1972,  In  questionnaires.  Maryland,  there  examined  designed  The major were  programs ficant  seven  open  schools  t o the educational  of the students  Scale.  were i n  space  i n Anne  schools  Arundel  and '  County,  t o see i fd i f f e r e n c e s i n p h y s i c a l - f a c i l i t i e s - h a d - a r e -  lationship morale  schools  Toronto.^  Gordon  t r a d i t i o n a l l y  The f o u r  program,  as measured  conclusion  few significant  i n t h e two types  drawn  and u l t i m a t e l y t o the  by Wrightsman's  School  from  was  this  study  differences i n the social of schools.  difference i n the morale  There  was  of the sixth  that  -  studies  also  grade  Morale  no  signi-  students  i n  73 the  two types In  1973,  noncognitive  were  structed control gram the  schools.'  Sewell  and Dornseif  outcomes  1ILO r a n d o m l y  volved who  of  given  at the junior  assigned  an open  classroom, students  who  reported  seventh  program  i n a  and an equal pursued  a  tests  Adjustment  Inventory,  o f a t t i t u d e s were  level.  single  administered  t o  The  Tests  evaluate  study  grade  con-  assigned  departmentalized o f personal  of social t o both  pro-  growth,  development,  groups  i n -  students  s p e c i f i c a l l y  o f randomly  traditional  tests  study  and eighth  number  i n self-contained classrooms. B e l l  high  a  and  i n October  72 P . S . W i l s o n , R. L a n g e v i n , a n d T. S t u c k e y , "Are Pupils i n t h e Open P l a n S c h o o l D i f f e r e n t ? " J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h 6 6 ( 3 ) ( N o v e m b e r 1 9 7 2 ) : 115-TTB^ ^•^Dorothy Mae G o r d o n , "A S t u d y o f D i f f e r e n c e s E x i s t i n g i n the Open-Space S c h o o l and Schools o f T r a d i t i o n a l D e s i g n o f Anne Arundel County,"'Maryland, Based upon a Survey o f S e l e c t e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f S i x t h Grade S o c i a l Studies Programs and t h e Morale o f Students i n t h o s e P r o g r a m s " ( P h . D. dissertation, University o f Maryland, 1972).  56 and  January.  and  social  found  Test  development  between showed  scores,  while  behaviour programs and  scores  types,  year  mixed  of  with  program  openness  f o r curiosity may  be  designed  high  and  different space.  i n s i x schools.  openness  was n o t  behaviour.  suggested  t h e optimum  school  and closed  o l d students  that  curiosity  was  extreme  space,  which  Schooling  of three  t o children's curiosity  d i s t r i b u t i o n  o f program  schools  o f  which  The Dimensions  study  and  types  test  c h a n g e . 7^-  no  an Ontario  Test  open  attitude  education  Curiosity  indicated  related  open  f o r each  i n the  p r a c t i c a l l y  i n different  space,  eleven  students  reported  growth  d i f f e r e n c e s were  i n t h e i r  showed  between  openness  237  gain  to select  open  of the data  curvilinear  group  enrolled  used  on t h e p e r s o n a l  significant  positive  f o r the study. was  that  However,  the Non-Verbal  were  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  no  and Weiss  o f program  subjects  l e v e l  Corlis  using  validated  Analysis  slight  of students  architectural The  a  relationships  Questionnaire low  test  the control  1973,  investigated  showed  t h e two groups.  program  In  results  that  a  A moderate  environment f o r  75 fostering  curiosity.  ^"Alan Multivariate the Junior Hi Reproduction  P . S e w e l l a n d A l a n W. D o r n s e i f . Controlled E v a l u a t i o n o f 6pen and T r a d i t i o n a l Education a t g h S c h o o l L e v e l ( B e t h e s d a , Md.: E R I C D o c u m e n t S e r v i c e , E D O 7 I 1 1LLLL, 1 9 7 3 ) .  75. Carol C o r l i s and J o e l Weiss. C u r i o s i t y and Openness: E m p i r i c a l T e s t i n g o f a B a s i c A s s u m p t i o n ( B e t h e s d a , Md.: E R I C D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , ED 0b5 0 8 6 , 1 9 7 3 ) .  57' 1973,  In ment  o f a random  students a l l y  who  b u i l t  students a l l y  sixth  had attended  i n t h e open  space  l e v e l ,  creativity  matched tests  o f second  schools  were  Motivational Curiosity. no  location,  Preference  significant  data  f o r 127  classrooms,  a n d f o r 131  classrooms  students  i n Leon  by  the curiosity  students  i n two  and open  schools  background.  The  t h e Haywood  and t h e Day Test analysis  of  Specific  o f variance,  found.^ climate  i n five  students  At the  found.  conventional  using  person-  conducted  o f Creativity,  analyzed  classroom  perceptions  contained  Tests  d i f f e r e n c e s were  compared  was  and socio-economic  Inventory,  were  study  grade  grade  i n the t r a d i t i o n a l  t o compare  and f i f t h  the Torrance  When  LeRoy  of Education grade  the fourth  d i f f e r e n c e s were  an Ontario  grade  tradition-,":  better adjusted  students  and two a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y  i n size,  used  year,  Board  while  o r a  p e r s o n a l l y and s o c i a l l y .  significant  t h e same  County  were  adjust-  and s i x t h  school  that  grade  and social  f i f t h ,  space  school  the f i f t h  no  fourth,  showed  better adjusted  grade  the personal  an open  Results  During  space  o f 180  school.  were  York  analyzed  sample  and s o c i a l l y ,  school  the  Hudson  third: grade  i n five  County,  and s e l e c t e d  third  Florida,  student  open  grade using  space self-  John  ^ C h a r l e s Eugene Hudson, "A C o m p a r i s o n o f S o c i a l a n d Personal Adjustment o f Elementary Students A t t e n d i n g a n Open Space School and Elementary Students Attending a Traditional School" (Ph.D dissertation, Saint Louis University, 1973). 7  77 y I . Day, " C u r i o s i t y ' a n d C r e a t i v i t y Among P u p i l s i n Open P l a n and A r c h i t e c t u r a l l y Conventional Schools." (York C o u n t y , O n t a r i o : Y o r k C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 1973), (Mimeographed.) H  Withall's  Social-Emotional  Perception  Report.  positivism  did  Using ences  a  She  not  Climate  found  d i f f e r  sample  of  Index  that  built  school  and  found  that  no  two  groups.  students,  i t y  Questionnaire  students  significant  Data  were  climate  LaPorge of  and  an  difference  sixth,  Self-  overall  d i f f e r -  from  open  a  space  tradi-  school,  e x i s t e d between  the  seventh,  compared  students  from  collected using  using  Classroom  s i g n i f i c a n t l y . ^  iiOO  and  the  classroom  i n personality characteristics  tionally  and  Children's  and  eighth  the  Personal-  grade  79 students.' 1973,  In from in  three  two  Newton  open  and  May  and  Scale,  and  Think  What  You  personality.  revealed f i f t h  many  grade  showed  that  classes  were  They the  -  The  a  responded included  test  procedures  The  to the  I-E  designed  and  and few  results  d i f f e r e n c e s between non  study  Children's  similarities  students.  a  significant  i n  grade  three  students classrooms  attitude  scales  Semantic-Differential Scale,  to  165  i n which  self-contained f i f t h  c i t i e s  June.  Self-Concept  of  two  Saskatchewan  during  conducted  and  measure  What  You  sixteen  Do  factors  attitude instruments  used  d i f f e r e n c e s between  the  of  test  the  pupils  i n  ten  the  of  Self-Concept open  and  twelve  other comparisons  7fi J u d i t h M a r t i n LeRoy, " C l a s s r o o m C l i m a t e and Student P e r c e p t i o n s : An E x p l o r a t o r y S t u d y o f T h i r d - G r a d e Classrooms i n S e l e c t e d Open S p a c e and S e l f - C o n t a i n e d S c h o o l s " (Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1973).  79 Herman Eugene LaForge, "The E f f e c t o f the Open Space D e s i g n o f an E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l u p o n the P e r s o n a l i t y C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Students" ( E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Houston, 1973).  59 made.  In  the  differences the  open  the  other  in  open  and  were  two  the  were  class  number  tense  while  than  the  Children's The  not  classes  conscientious  one  no  personality  scores  of  of  were  pupils  pupils  Scale,  significantly 2ii  i n  I-E  than  the  of  larger  less  i n  i n  28  the  the  pupils  i n  comparisons  class  the  pupils those  made.  less  self-contained  open  the  different'from  excitable,  the  significant  of  Pupils  circumspect,  number  number  i n  two  self-contained  one  were  less  number  two  80  i  As  part  tudes  and  rooms  using  Scale  with  in  of  found.  classes  less  class,  case  self-esteem the 1+37  B r i t i s h  nificant  open  tudes not  w i l l  School third  differences on  the  area  study, open  At on  areas  the the  looked  and  Index  students  attitude  learning.  Allen  Sentiment  grade  students  toward  third  and  grade  to  on  less  classy  grade  he  students  found  Scale,  the  a t t i -  Self-Appraisal  f i f t h  level  At  have  Differences  the  355  Self-Appraisal  appeared  student  self-contained  and  subtests.  at  and  f i f t h  no  only  grade  favourable  a l l other  sigone level  a t t i -  subtests  were  s i g n i f i c a n t . ^ In  who  i n  Columbia.  difference the  a  1971+, J u d d c o n d u c t e d a  believed have  themselves tional  a  they more  as  school.  were  i n  positive  learners As  i n  study  control attitude an  subjects,  open he  of  to  determine  their  toward  own  school  11+1  sixth  used  students  reinforcements  school  space  i f  and  than-in grade  toward a  tradi-  students  ^ S a r l e E. N e w t o n , "Open Space S c h o o l s : A F e a s i b i l i t y Study of Measurement i n the A f f e c t i v e Domain." (Regina, Saskatchewan: S a s k a t c h e w a n S c h o o l T r u s t e e s A s s o c i a t i o n , J u n e 1973)» (Mimeographed.) ^ I a n  Allen,  op.  c i t . , pp.  1-7.  60 from  three  three  space  traditional  external school  locus  while  positive  learners scores ences  He  themselves  students attitude  with  with  found  space  that  Significant  grade  students  students  positive  with  attitude  from  an toward  i n the traditional  an internal  locus  school  setting.  t h e two groups  sixth  as learners  toward  not considered,  between  Studies  schools.  i n t h e open  were  a n d 17U  schools  o f c o n t r o l h a d a more  and toward  schools, more  open  there  and toward  themselves  When  o f control  were  under  Findings  o f control had a  locus  no  significant  as  d i f f e r -  study.  Favouring  Open  Space  Classrooms, One 1969,  i n Ontario.  with  student  students months f i f t h  to  He  and twenty  grade  space  students  two types  less  results  grade  reported  and twenty  were showed  o f a feeling  were  that  had been  t h e open  o f anonymity  f i f t h  students  Pupil  and t-tests  space  grade only s i x  administered  The  o f  and s i g n i f i c a n t l y  into  responses  s t a t i s t i c a l  o f t h e two  pupils had  t o I4.i1  i n self-  placement  randomized.  o n t h e means  dealing  who h a d s p e n t  grade  school.  weighted  performed  t o 2$  I t was a l s o sixth  i n t h e same  was b y L y n c h i n  a questionnaire  students  school.  o f classrooms  the questionnaire  The  studies  administered  sixth  classrooms  significance  such  a t t i t u d e s and perceptions  i n one open  contained the  o f the f i r s t  groups.  significantly  better p e r -  D a v i d Edward Judd, "The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Locus o f Cont r o l a s a P e r s o n a l i t y V a r i a b l e t o S t u d e n t A t t i t u d e i n t h e Open S c h o o l E n v i r o n m e n t " ( E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d , 1971}-). 8  2  61 c e p t i o n s of t h e i r t e a c h e r ' s o b j e c t i v e s and  expectations.  Purkey, Graves, and Z e l l n e r conducted  a study i n  1970  u s i n g Coopersmith's Self-Esteem Inventory i n order to explore the impact  of a team-teaching  p u p i l ' s self-esteem.  In the open space s c h o o l , s u b j e c t s were  ii1l± t h i r d , f o u r t h , f i f t h , f o u r , f i v e , and  six.  third, fourth, f i f t h ,  ungraded open space s c h o o l on the  and  s i x t h grade p u p i l s i n pods t h r e e ,  I n the nonopen s c h o o l , s u b j e c t s were and  s i x t h grade p u p i l s .  Results  525  indicated  t h a t over the f o u r - y e a r span of ages there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the scores of the two l e v e l i n c r e a s e d , i t was  groups.  As grade  found t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f -  esteem between the two  schools i n c r e a s e d .  space school evidenced  r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y i n s e l f - e s t e e m up to  pod  five  ( f i f t h grade), and then showed a marked i n c r e a s e i n  mean s e l f - e s t e e m score at pod  s i x ( s i x t h grade).  nonopen s c h o o l showed a steady decrease scores to f i f t h grade, The  P u p i l s i n the open  P u p i l s i n the  i n mean s e l f - e s t e e m  and then s t a b i l i z e d at t h a t  level.^  f o l l o w i n g year, Carbonari assessed the change i n  student a t t i t u d e s as a f u n c t i o n of time i n one  open space  s c h o o l u s i n g the IPAT C h i l d r e n ' s P e r s o n a l i t y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e comparing a random sample of students who  by  had been i n an open  space s c h o o l one year or more w i t h those who  had been i n an  ^Peter Lynch, "The E f f e c t s of the D i f f e r e n t L e a r n i n g Environments Found i n Open P l a n L e a r n i n g Communities and S e l f Contained Classrooms on the A t t i t u d e s and P e r c e p t i o n s of Grade F i v e and S i x P u p i l s . " (Toronto: The O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n , A p r i l 1 9 6 9 ) , (Mimeographed.) iam W. Purkey, W i l l i a m Graves, and Mary Z e l l n e r , " S e l f - P e r c e p t i o n s of P u p i l s i n an Experimental Elementary S c h o o l , " The Elementary School J o u r n a l LXXI (December 1 9 7 0 ) : 166-171 .  62 open  space  children were  In  than  one y e a r .  i n t h e open  independent,  l i v e l y , with  addition,  the teachers  i n t h e open  were  l i t t l e  was f o u n d  to a standarization that  the teachers  that the  s c h o o l one year  space  t o open  and space.  s c h o o l were When  (71+9  group  o r more  extroverted  exposure  Personal Preference Schedule.  compared  found  self-reliant,  the children  Edwards  He  space  than  the  i t  who h a d b e e n  more  anxious  schools less  their  women  l o o k e d v e r y much  given  .  scores  i n college),  like the  85 standardization Using conducted  group.  a total  a study  ^  sample  o f 216  t o determine  over  primary  and intermediate levels  grade  Laboratory School  i n a traditional  Social  Symbols  Tasks  Test  were  open  space  than  the children  showed the  an  time  i fany change  concept  Colorado's  a one year  children,  span.  an increase  self-contained  occurred i n self-  The c h i l d r e n  and from  school i n Colorado.  When  the traditional  i n self-esteem, while showed  a  Constructs  i twas f o u n d with  school.  f i f t h  the Self-  Self-Social  had greater identification  classrooms  o f Northern  kindergarten t o  and the Children's  from  were t h e  o f the University  a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a l ls u b j e c t s , children  Heimgartner  that the t h e group  They  also  the children  from  decrease.  ^Joseph Carbonari, "Report o f an E v a l u a t i o n O p e n - C o n c e p t S c h o o l , " R e p o r t a n d F a c t S h e e t 8(5)  Study o f (March 1971)  Norman L o u i s H e i m g a r t n e r , "A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y o f S e l f - C o n c e p t : Open Space V e r s u s S e l f - C o n t a i n e d C l a s s r o o m s " ( P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f N o r t h e r n C o l o r a d o , 1972).  63 1972,  In variables space  Texas.  When  mental  group  were  grade  Anifant seventh, open  students using The  60  three  randomly  risk-taking  behaviour  r  88 In  1972,  sixth, years  students used  was  space  t h e open  Dilemmas  Beckley  a  three  (30  o f  and eighth  grade  Procedure. 2 X 2 X 3  would  ( p .001)  study  sixth, years  the Ring  a  s t u d e n t s . ^  o r more  a n d 30  boys  s t a t i s t i -  found f o r  space  behaviour  Procedure,  conducted  were  of traditional  pupils  supported  Personality  seventh,  were  Dilemmas  and the experi-  level  having  open  longitudinal  o f Personality,  o f variance using  t h e open  and the Choice  Game.  students  instruments  Game  Test  from  school i n  o f a  group  a t t h e .01  o r more  and the Choice  that  year  the risk-taking  selected  by analysis  hypothesis  i n t h e same  favoured  schooling with  having  Game,  analyzed  which  personality  students  on t h e Children's  differences  levels  and  grade  i n the control  compared  compared  risk-taking  Bead  classrooms  and e i g h t h grade space  and s i x t h  and the C a l i f o r n i a  significant  three  the attitudes  I t was t h e second  the students  Questionnaire  of  f i f t h ,  and self-contained  study.  a l l  compared  o f fourth,  Friendswood,  cally  Wren  Toss  schooling g i r l s ) . Game, t h e  The d a t a  were  design.  The  be more  inclined  by the Ring  t o  Toss  b u t n o t by t h e Bead  t o measure  change  of  Sara Jean Wren, "A C o m p a r i s o n o f A f f e c t i v e F a c t o r s between Contained Classrooms a n d Open A r e a C l a s s r o o m s " (Ed. D d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f H o u s t o n , 1972). ® David Charles A n i f a n t , "Risk Taking Behaviour i n Children E x p e r i e n c i n g Open Space and T r a d i t i o n a l S c h o o l E n v i r o n m e n t s " ( P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d , 1972). 8  6k a t t i t u d e toward s c h o o l and toward s e l f o f elementary students when 210 o f the s c h o o l s ' students were t r a n s f e r r e d to an open space s c h o o l , out of a t o t a l o f k95  students.  G e t z e l and  Jackson's Student O p i n i o n P o l l and the Sears S e l f - C o n c e p t Inventory were a d m i n i s t e r e d i n September 1971, and as a p o s t t e s t i n May  1,972.  A one-way a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e measured the  degree o f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups o f s t u dents, by s c h o o l , by grade l e v e l , and by sex and grade  level.  A d j u s t e d mean s c o r e s i n every comparison between students i n the open space classrooms and those i n s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classrooms favoured the open space group f o r a t t i t u d e toward school; and ? f o r a t t i t u d e toward  self.^9  In 1973, Chandrashekhar  compared the e f f e c t s o f the open  space environment on the s o c i a l - e m o t i o n a l adjustment of 179 randomly s e l e c t e d students u s i n g seven age groups from two open space schools w i t h the s o c i a l - e m o t i o n a l adjustment o f 176 randomly s e l e c t e d students from two t r a d i t i o n a l  schools.  Students from the open space schools w i t h mothers h a v i n g h i g h A u t h o r i t a r i a n - C o n t r o l , h i g h H o s t i l i t y - R e j e c t i o n and low Democratic A t t i t u d e s were found t o be b e t t e r a d j u s t e d than s i m i l a r students from two t r a d i t i o n a l  schools.  In 197i+» Musemeche and Adams examined  the s o c i a l and  " L a r r y Lee Beckley, "Comparative Study of Elementary School Student A t t i t u d e s toward S c h o o l and S e l f i n Open Concept and S e l f - C o n t a i n e d Environments" (Ph. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Purdue U n i v e r s i t y , 1972). ^°Joshi Chandrashekhar, "A Comparative Study of the S o c i a l - E m o t i o n a l Adjustment o f Students i n S e l e c t e d Open-Space and S e l f - C o n t a i n e d Classroom S c h o o l s " (Ph. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Montana, 1973).  65 emotional school  development  t o s e e i ft h e r e  had  come  and  1 LLIL s t u d e n t s  Data  an open  related  student  space  using  grade  d i f f e r e n c e s between school  c r i t e r i a .  by a group  o f seventh  social  composite  space  students.  and  15  schools test  only  found  that  higher  year,  randomly  design  mean  Reiss 30  sampled  o f three  and f i v e  grade  progress,  built  schools. five  o f which was  composite  of  were  completed  social  from  persistence  and Dyhdalo  second from  studies  o f students favoured  on  the  scores  open  than  compared t h e (15  students  o f three  schools  o f 181  sample  a l l three  grade  each  conventional  f o r a total  students  who  91  of approximately  and each  6ii s t u d e n t s  t h e two groups  and t h e emotional  t h e same  g i r l s )  high  continuous  The instrument  the  persistence  i n a junior  traditionally  c r i t e r i a ,  The d i f f e r e n c e s between  During  using  from  teachers.  open  students  t e nL i k e r t - t y p e statements,  to social  t o emotional  each  were  who h a d come  collected  were  related for  from  were  which  o f seventh  open  using  a  students.  space  space postThey  schools  the children  boys  obtained  from  any o f  92 the  three  traditional  I n "l'9.7l|, o f 96  sample and  three  O'Neill  schools.  7  compared  f o u r t h grade  g i r l s  self-contained schools  self-esteem from  three  using  using open  a  total  space  the Coopersmith  schools Self-  " R i c h a r d Musemeche a n d Sam Adams, "Open Space Schools and t h e N o n - C o g n i t i v e D o m a i n , " GEFP J o u r n a l (September/October 197i».): 4 - 6 . < 7  1  92 Stephen Reiss and Nester Dyhdalo, A c h i e v e m e n t , and Open Space E n v i r o n m e n t s , " Educational Psychology (1975/1976).  "Persistence, i npress, Journal  o f  66 Esteem four low  Inventory  groups i n both  gence, data  (children  factors  the girls with  a b i l i t i e s ,  and high  were  after  high  creativity.  high  He  that  self-esteem  regardless  an  interaction  between  positively  rooms,  creativity  and high  creativity  but negatively related  intelligence,  The  with the  and high  intelligence  with  one o f  and low i n i n t e l l i -  analysis of variance  of school  associated  into  and low i n c r e a t i v i t y ) .  and low i n t e l l i g e n c e ,  found  placed  i n creativity  2X2  to a  to  was  high  i n intelligence  submitted  being  had been  and low  was p o s i t i v e l y  type,  and that  and school  self-esteem  there  type.  was  Creativity  i n open  to self-esteem  related  space  class-  i n self-contained  classrooms.  Studies  with  Significant  Findings  Favouring  Traditional  Classrooms In grade and  1971,  Sackett  students  i n an open  a departmentalized  Esteem  Inventory.  signed  to f i t a  space,  a n d was  tion  he  significantly  school  The open  oriented freedom  found lower  that  the self-concept  space  curriculum  a n d maximum  variance,  compared  school,  using  space geared  toward  a  the Coopersmith  school  was  t o team  of exploration.  f o r t h e open  scores space  sixth  self-contained  school,  Self-  s p e c i f i c a l l y  teaching  a humanistic  t h e mean  of  and  approach  Using  open  t o  educa-  analysis of  f o rself-concept students  de-  than  were  comparable  93 ^Patrick O'Neill, "Creative S e l f - C o n t a i n e d C l a s s r o o m s . " (197LL),  C h i l d r e n i n Open (Mimeographed.)  Space  and  67 students In County,  i n the other  two  1973,  reported  Grapko  Ontario.  children's variables students  using from  administered  built  security,  and  had  test  differences data  was  grade  some pupils  advantage  The  up  The  results  f o r the fourth  i n the traditional  over  the sixth  school.  I n addition,  security  measures  ^ J o h n Wi Achievement of Self-Contained dissertation, U  by  grade  t h e open one  showed  year.  a  to  rate  a Test)  comparison  that  better  at the  according  o f the June pupils,  continued  pupils  from  space  pupils  the  pupils fourth  significant  level  grade  school  on  open  the scores f o r  s t a t i s t i c a l l y grade  the  Security  When  that  grade older  a b i l i t y  Study  d i d markedly no  that  self-description  found  at the f i f t h  i n January.  catch  i n their  and independence  with  personality  and one  showed  i n June.  i n  to seventh  school  of Child  and again  school  level,  space results  own  out i n Grey  measures  fourth  advantage  i t was  ^  of children's  o f 257  open  to their  made,  apparent  collected  showed  slight  consistency,  grade  independence  (the Institute  the traditional sixth  opened  9k  study carried  awareness  school. a  of schools. a  sample  i n January  the results  from  total  i n accordance  personality  of  a  a newly  teachers  pupils  compared  and teachers.'  traditionally space  He  types  testing  but the  sixth  to maintain  t h e open were  to the  an  space  behind  i n the  ^  lliam Sackett, "Comparison o f S e l f - C o n c e p t and S i x t h Grade S t u d e n t s i n an Open Space School, S c h o o l a n d D e p a r t m e n t a l i z e d S c h o o l " ( P h . D. n i v e r s i t y o f Iowa, 1971).  95 ^Michael Grapko, "A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y o f O p e n S p a c e T r a d i t i o n a l Classroom Structures According t o Independence Measures i n C h i l d r e n , Teachers* Awareness o f C h i l d r e n ' s P e r s o n a l i t y V a r i a b l e s and C h i l d r e n ' s Academic Progress." ( T o r o n t o : I n s t i t u t e o f C h i l d S t u d y , 1973), (Mimeographed.)  and  68 General  It in  this  space are  appears chapter  that on  classrooms,  generally  greater  open  to  of  be  the  the  of  In  which the  Similar in  1976  by  the  conclusions and  There i s c o n f l i a r e a s on p u p i l s towards school. i s a tendency f o f the d a t a on s u b j e c t i v e and  of  i n  i n  time.  While  than  space  on  while results  students  i n  more  studies  that,  of  i n  classrooms In  the  about  about  one  variables which  another  one  showed s i g n i f i c a n t from  results the  a  report  the  suggests  open research,  s i g n i f i c a n t differences  between  Pavan  open  reviewed-  education  inconclusive.  studies,  were  present  depending  studies,  differences  open  reviewed  and  the  outcomes  classrooms  students,  favoured  on  studies  a f f e c t i v e outcomes  effects  showed  remaining  Martin  on  studies,  space  reported  the  research  results  open  significant"  on  reported  the  differences  the  57  the  cognitive  space  contradictory  examined,  rooms.  at  for  outcomes,  of  findings  findings  continue  fourth  the  studies  findings  favoured  like  and  the  general,  being  affective  of  cognitive  fourth  findings  inconclusive  number  positive  the  Summary  self-contained  tended  groups  being  to  class-  show  "no  compared.  reached  i n  1975  hy  reviews  of  open  space  Dobson,  and  research.  c t i n g e v i d e n c e on t h e e f f e c t s o f open' a c a d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e and t h e i r attitudes However, i n the studies of a t t i t u d e s , there o r f i n d i n g s to f a v o u r open-areas, but many w h i c h these„findings a r e b a s e d are unreliable.  96 B r i t i s h  Lee Dobson, "Studies of Open-Areas." (Vancouver, C o l u m b i a : V a n c o u v e r S c h o o l B o a r d , 1975), (Mimeographed.)  69 The s t u d i e s as a w h o l e do n o t f i n d t h a t o p e n s p a c e school o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o m o t e s any r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n l e a r n i n g and teaching outcomes. Innovative programs of a l l types can exist within old buildings o r i g i n a l l y intended for t r a d i t i o n a l classrooms, and i t seems e v i d e n t t h a t changes i n a r c h i t e c t u r e do n o t , i n a n d o f t h e m s e l v e s , make a g r e a t difference. In  reviewing  current  vertical  grouping,  and  out  a  number  loosely  they  and  found  implementing  or  consistency  i n  cluded  their  the  from  studies  sure  that  variable.  may that  almost  also  f e l t  equated  with  also  concern  about  of  open  space  found  that  was  under that open this  space,  actual  no  used  the  practices  there  space  could  the  only  schools  i n  at a l l .  a  either  was  l i t t l e  They of not  con-  many  of  be  independent  were  classrooms.  misconception  often  formula  v a l i d i t y one  pointed  were  assessment.  because  education  terms  and  s c r u t i n y was open  nongrading,  Pavan.  universal  for  assessing  and  that  innovations,  impossible,  erroneously voiced  there  open Martin  describe  designs  innovation  They  They  evaluating  review  on  teaching,  not  research  was  the  team  limitations.  defined,  Moreover, for  of  research  often  Armstrong 1975  review  research.  B e f o r e a l a r g e b o d y o f m e a n i n g f u l r e s e a r c h c a n be b u i l t up i n t h i s a r e a , i n v e s t i g a t o r s m u s t come t o g r i p s w i t h this issue of s p e c i f i c i t y . Comparisons between open space s c h o o l e n v i r o n m e n t s and self-contained classroom environments, unless c a r e f u l d e s c r i p t i o n s of these s e t t i n g s are provided, i n v o l v e measurements of very gross entities. There i s a need to r e s t r i c t the focus, a need to ask, "What a s p e c t o f p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t X i s h y p o t h e s i z e d as promoting p u p i l behavior Y?"'  ^ L y n S. M a r t i n a n d B a r b a r a N . P a v a n , "Current Research on Open S p a c e , N o n g r a d i n g , V e r t i c a l G r o u p i n g , and Team T e a c h i n g , " P h i D e l t a K a p p a n ( J a n u a r y 1976): 311.  98 D a v i d G. A r m s t r o n g , "Open Space v s . Educational Leadership 32(£L) ( J a n u a r y 1 9 7 5 ) :  Self-Contained,"  29ii.  The voiced  a  authors common  space  studies  other  open  of  under  space  cannot  was  the  only  variables  sure  under  of  may  have  ber  of  number  lack  the  being  of  (Warner  1973)  attempted  design. alone,  greatly  space  1970, to  a  space  open  of  programs  f a c i l i t i e s  i n  i n  the  f o r  w i t h i n the  teachers  and  variable  shown  schools  same  and  school. been  f a c i l i t i e s ,  and  case  students  small Corlis  f o r  i n a  a  num-  large  the number and  Weiss  research  programs  even  between  while  accompanied i n other  have  a  f a c i l i t y  that  For  As  confounding  i n their  controlled  of  the  design.  differences i n  1975,  w a l l s has  open  number  Although  a  variable  scrutiny  that  the  chapter.  s t u d i e s have  i n t e r i o r  present  studies, only  space  a  'all variables,  Park  number  dependent  were  been  to  a l l variables  under  research  have  this  open  over  over  the  there  a  dependent  control  program  and  open  some  the  program)  researchers of  on  that  this  the  that  control  affecting  to  i n their  between  classrooms  of  over  noted  control  a l l concluded  i n the  appears  number  disappearance  more  control  Schnee  remaining  although  vary  open the  The  control  reported  u t i l i z e d  of  of  research  their.generalizability  effect  be  space  some  v a r i a b l e ' ( f a c i l i t y )  type  researchers  schools them  of  open of  adequate  variable  as to  and  lack  I t may  This  studies  an  of  v a l i d i t y  They  this the  study.  resulted.  of  the  date,  had  of  that  reviews  exercise  have  f a i l e d  this  the  to  independent  researcher(s)  can  may  v a r i a b l e s (such  result  about  to  Because  be  three  f a c i l i t i e s .  f a i l e d  study.  other  concern  which  one  these  conducted  researchers  variables  of  open  continued  by  71 to  function i n a very  phenomenon  traditional  manner.  Cooke  describes  this  thus:  At one end there i s what I would c a l l a g e n u i n e l y 'open p a t t e r n where s t u d e n t s a r e no l o n g e r p e r m a n e n t l y s e ti n classes. Instead, grouping v a r i e s over the school day between t h e o c c a s i o n a l large-group p r e s e n t a t i o n i n f r o n t o f a l l s t u d e n t s a n d , f a rm o r e f r e q u e n t l y , p e r i o d s o f q u i t e independent a c t i v i t y by the students individually.... H o w e v e r , a s we p a s s a l o n g t h i s d i m e n s i o n o f o p e n n e s s t o i t s o t h e r e x t r e m e we s e e t h e o p e n p a t t e r n o f o r g a n i z a t i o n used less and l e s s . F i n a l l y , we r e a c h t h e p o i n t w h e r e t h e open room c o n t a i n s n o t h i n g more than s e v e r a l 'classroom' groups c o e x i s t i n g side by s i d e . Each i s a t r a d i t i o n a l teaching situation with students listening to the l e s s o n s o f t h e i r own t e a c h e r . " 1  These thirteen study.  observations  Ontario  open  were  space  made  schools  H i s f i n d i n g s show how t o focus  their  being  but also  on t h e type  within  t h e open  program 1973  as w e l l  Ontario  Ontario  study  using When the  conducted  and Tran  interaction  studied  i n relation method  the classrooms  were  need  and  of h i s doctoral  on the  being  space f a c i l i t y  u t i l i z e d  .  f o r controlling  and Tran,  and a  a 1972  Christie.  differences i n  teacher-student  t o both  and  of recording compared  of the s t a t i s t i c a l  visited  f u r t h e r substantiated by  by D i l l i n g  by Nash  the Flanders  results  was  This  he  i ti s f o ropen  o f program  f a c i l i t y .  conducted  after  attention not only  as f a c i l i t y  study  D i l l i n g verbal  space  as part  important  researchers used,  by Cooke  program verbal  interaction.  on t h e v a r i a b l e  analyses  showed  f a c i l i t y  a  f a c i l i t y , significant  G e o f f r e y Cooke, "Problems o f Teacher-Student O r g a n i z a t i o n i n Openrooms." ( O n t a r i o : York County Board E d u c a t i o n , 1973), ( M i m e o g r a p h e d . ) , p p . 2-3.  of  72 difference  f o ronly  ject  matter  same  classrooms  ficant  talk.  programs In  were  They than  t h e Nash  obtained was  found  found  found  losophy  that  o f open  responses  f a c i l i t y  f o rthe variable  that  there  was  programs.  and C h r i s t i e  study,  Assumptions  to the teachers the greatest  o f emphasis group.  on t h e v a r i a b l e  i n nonopen  area  the degree  t h e open  compared  when B a r t h ' s  administered  They  favoured  d i f f e r e n c e was  teacher open  which  one v a r i a b l e ,  schools"  teacher  an unexpected Education  o f agreement  as measured  to the questionnaire  percentage  was  signi-  of talk i n  result  was  Questionnaire  i n t h e two types  amount  a  ®®  1  about  sub-  When t h e  program,  less  on  of  f a c i l i t i e s .  with  the  "phi-  by the teachers'  expressed  by the teachers  i n  101 the  nonopen The  limited  by the small  student  housing one This  open  f a c i l i t y  use of small  samples. were  sample  both  open  schools.  f i n d i n g s o f a number  f i n d i n g s o f 29  The a  f a c i l i t y  I n both  sample  was  school  obtained  from  (teacher  o f the f i n d i n g s o f these  were  either  one  on  school  obtained  from  nonopen  f a c i l i t y  schools,  i n small  and student), Therefore,  studies  based  o r was  resulted  selected.  studies are  by the researchers.  f a c i l i t i e s ,  samples  space  studies  and one o r more  student cases  u t i l i z e d  reported  and nonopen  u s u a l l y not randomly  a b i l i t y  size  o f t h e 57  which  o f t h e open  these  teacher samples  the generalize  i s restricted.  H. J . D i l l i n g a n d C h a u T h i T r a n , "A C o m p a r i s o n o f Teacher-Pupil Verbal I n t e r a c t i o n i n Open-Plan and Closed Classrooms." (Ontario: Scarborough Board o f Education, June 1973), ( M i m e o g r a p h e d . )  1 01 Nash  and Christie,  op. c i t . ,  p.  12.  73 It biased  appears  their  specific the  school  described  which  to  a  factors obtained  an  place  older  effect  addition to  program  there  may  i n some  a  had  above  on  These been  the  of  a  Elementary  from  the Grapko  newly  opened  school.  year  of of  over  space  Matzke  number  second  have  selecting  School.  built  open  In studies  the  open  resulted i n a Halo  effect  studies.  factors,  effects  have  or  by  open  sample  a  may  advantages  the  from  were  have  of  bearing  that  coming  traditionally  This  the  T h e r e may  have  Laboratory  the f i r s t  c o g n i t i v e measures. a.  f a c i l i t i e s  the well-known  as  study,  the  had  concerning  as  sample  during  have  may  researchers  K i l l o u g h described  operation.  may  open  Colorado's  the Grapko  Hawthorne In  and  and  of  of  selected h i s student  h i s student  school  number  which  i n h i s research  classroom's or  schools  of Northern  took  small  i n favour  Heimgartner  University  addition  space  a  f a c i l i t i e s .  used  School.  space  studies  open  nonopen  that  a  number  of  other  the contradictory findings school  f a c i l i t y  on  affective  factors are: factors other  determined  the  than  success  f a c i l i t y  of  a  or  school  program. b.  I n the  studies  randomly status,  The  sex, and  of  by  teacher  since  or  many  intelligence  subjects  of  involved  were  were  not  socio-economic not  properly  the researcher(s).  v a r i a b l e may  teachers.  were  school  selected, differences i n  controlled c.  where  not have  the researchers In  some  i n the  cases, study.  used only  been  well  only one  or  a  controlled  small two  number  teachers  Ik d.  The  instruments  reliable e.  The  f.  i n  The  should  to  studies Optimum between  type  present  study  interaction  as  size,  over  procedures a.  may  not  this  design  and  to  more  time.  Only  chapter from  type  of  examine  more  effective  variables, attempt  to  variables,  viz  ..  differences  establish  the  such  control  studies, and  The  firmer  following  employed:  student ten  three  gence,  named  an  program.  p o s s i b i l i t y of  difference In  the  interaction  school  the  i n  longitudinal.  an  individual  above  been  s i x of  were  stem  establish  programs.  have  longitudinal  i n previous  these  The  been  over  i n fact  to  used  controlled  (from b.  been s u f f i c i e n t l y  well  were A  as  have  i n  designed  not  instructional  control  may  school  well  have  cases.  change  reported  was  variables  sample in  of  some  show  results  not  procedures  appropriate studies  may  v a l i d .  s t a t i s t i c a l  nature  over  or  used  sample  consisting  schools)  was  individual  socio-economic  of  321  t h i r d  grade  students  u t i l i z e d .  difference status,  variables, and  sex,  were  V),  which  had  i n t e l l i used  as  covariates. c.  A  teacher  questionnaire  extensive  testing  a l l  t h i r d  grade  the  openness  program.  or  and  (DISC  revision,  teachers  was  i n order  nonopenness  of  undergone  administered  to  to  differentiate  their  instructional  75 CHAPTER  DESIGN  AND  I I I  PROCEDURE  Overview  In 165  this  g i r l s )  schools area,  t h i r d  i n  who  case,  had  space  selection  been  factors,  type  f a c i l i t y , allowing  the  selected  addition,  effects  cognitive  the  and  interaction  and  two  the  or  classrooms program  to  u t i l i z e  2X2  of  these  two of  of  two  on  grade  and  either  an  The to  the  two  school  grade  crossed  children,  design  to  self-concept children. the  type  factors  intelligence,  i n  of  estimate  program  these  type  factors  to  an  nonopen  t h i r d  t h i r d  researcher  i n  according  and  of  type  years  metropolitan  classroom.  groupings  between of  open  a  elementary  Vancouver  more  boys,  and  In  interaction  of the  socio-economic  f a c i l i t y , individual status,  sex. The  three  socio-economic two  grade  measures  factors,  variables  or  (156  selected  self-contained  i n four  i t allowed  difference  a  instructional  between the  or  researcher the  f o r two  321  of  ten  i n the  c l a s s i f i e d as  third  resulted  investigate and  of  from  d i s t r i c t s  program  these  consisted  children  taught  classroom of  sample  grade  s i x school  instructional open  the  ways.  were f i r s t  used  individual status,  First, as  order  and  sex,  a l l three  covariates. and  difference  higher  were  u t i l i z e d  individual  Secondly, order  variables  of  i n the  difference  they  were  interactions.  intelligence,  used  These  analyses  variables i n  testing  interactions  i n  76 included  both  school  variables  study,  the term  and i n d i v i d u a l  difference  variables. In to  opeh s p a c e  used or  this  classrooms,  to refer  (DISC the  was  determined  on the Dimensions  V ) .  Thus,  nonopen  within  f a c i l i t y  f a c i l i t y "  and the term  to self-contained  nonopenness  responses  "open  i s used  "nonopen  classrooms.  t h e open  classrooms  i s  openness  of teachers'  Questionnaire  f a c i l i t y used  refer  f a c i l i t y "  Program  by an a n a l y s i s  of Schooling  to  classrooms,  i n this  study,  and  within  the  1 02 instructional  program  Generally, following  structure of  classified program  composition  and student  low on these During  tended  characteristics  f o rdecision-making,  evaluation,  as open  -  time  same p r o g r a m  A  role  for open  at least  d i s t r i c t  o r not the suggested children  who  two y e a r s ,  o r nonopen  had been  schools  tended  I n order  d i d i n fact  i n t h e same  and i n a d d i t i o n  instructional  program  student to  d i s t r i c t  s u p e r v i s o r s , and school p r i n c i p a l s .  grade  of teacher,  superintendents,  primary  third  individualization  elementary  was  whether  environment,  t o use f i f t e e n  schools  tain  from  on t h e  instructional  scheduling,  nonopen  high  characteristics.  M a r c h , 197it-> p e r m i s s i o n obtained  nonopen.  physical  of classes,  control.  or  to score  setting  m a t e r i a l s and a c t i v i t i e s ,  instruction,  score  an open  program  objectives,  was  program  type  had been  f o rboth  to ascercontain  of  taught  o f these  f a c i l i t y by  an  two  1 02 Ross E. Traub, e t a l . , " C l o s u r e on Openness: D e s c r i b i n g and Q u a n t i f y i n g Open E d u c a t i o n , " I n t e r c h a n g e 3(2-3) pp. 69-83. A d e s c r i p t i o n and a copy o f t h e DISC V c a n be found i n Appendixes A a n d B.  77 years, March  the fifteen and A p r i l .  schools  I t was found  visited  could  nonopen  instructional  for  at least  be c l a s s i f i e d  the last  Questionnaire teachers  nonopen. that as  their  short  trained  the of  eleven  of the schools  conducted  i n t h e same  type  an open o r of  The Dimensions t o t h e 28  administered elementary  schools  instructional  o f the scored  197k,  A p r i l ,  the Cognitive  schools  f a c i l i t y  of Schooling  third  grade  f o rt h e p u r p o s e program  t h e programs  of  as open o r  questionnaire  major  M a y , 197k,  A b i l i t i e s  indicated  could  t o a l l third  assistant. source  grade  Primary  children  The o c c u p a t i o n  status  mation  on occupations  school  information  be  classed  1  o r from  week  Inventory  1 0  ^"  were  by the researcher  was u s e d  from  i n June,  andthe  of the individual  ( S E S ) f o re a c h  was o b t a i n e d  sheets  II, °^  Self-Concept  o f f a m i l y income  socio-economic  and the f i r s t  Test,  v e r s i o n o f t h e Sears  administered a  by the researcher i n  o r nonopen.  During 197k,  that  two y e a r s .  existing  The r e s u l t s  visited  as having  program  i n t e no f the eleven  open  1966  was t h e n  i n the eleven  classifying  were  t o provide  and  providing an  index  child.  This  infor-  school  record  f i l e s  the teacher.  o r  The s o c i o -  1 0E> economic  index  used  was a  scale  developed  by Blishen i n  1967,  103 Canadian  &  Sons,  Robert L. Thorndike, E l i z a b e t h Hagen, and I r v i n g C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s T e s t , P2/F1 ( T o r o n t o : Thomas  Lorge, Nelson  1970).  °^A f u r t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e Sears Self-Concept I n v e n t o r y c a n b e f o u n d i n A p p e n d i x C, a n d a c o p y o f i t c a n b e f o u n d i n A p p e n d i x D. 1  1 QC ^ B e r n a r d R. B l i s h e n , e t a l . , e d s . , C a n a d i a n S o c i e t y S o c i o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s ( T o r o n t o : M a c M i l l a n o f C a n a d a , 1971),  pp.  k95-509.  78 the  Socio-Economic During  the  Index  month  f o r Occupations J u n e , 1974,  of  i n  four  Canada.  subtests  of  the  1 06 Canadian  Tests  hension,  Mathematics  administered  to  formance  on  Tests  Basic  of  multiple used  as  grade data of  of  the  a l lthird Sears  regression  program  these  of  321  were  While ten  data  f o r two  General The  in  1.  I, How  (b)  being  been  (165  on  the  g i r l s ,  i n the  years  d a t a were  f i n a l 156  i n perCanadian  using  and  sex  were  a l l I1J4.2  the  type  used  i n  available sample  third  only  same  were  not  were  the  f o r  I4.3  consisted  boys).  Problem  investigated  of  i n this  f o r convenience  as  are  school  and  type  of  of  reading  program  third  f a c i l i t y related  grade  problem  to  children  comprehension,  (d) mathematics  Basic  the  SES,  i s restated  formance  of  Differences  these measures,  o r more  children,  children  instructional  4  Problems)  collected  had  Compre-  Problem  problem  Chapter  on  who  Since complete grade  were  schools  The  The  children.  Intelligence,  f a c i l i t y  grade  Mathematics  analyzed f o r significance  (36I4.)  36JLj. t h i r d  third  grade  students  analyses.  of  and  S e l f - C o n c e p t I n v e n t o r y and  i n the  and  (Vocabulary, Reading  analyses.  covariates.  children  S k i l l s  Concepts,  S k i l l s  f o r those  f i n a l  Basic  study,  as  follows: type  the i n  of  measured  per-  (a) v o c a b u l a r y ,  (c) mathematics  solving,  stated  and  to  concepts,  (e)  measures  self-concept?  f)C.  • E t h e l M. K i n g , e d . , Teacher's Manual, S k i l l s ( T o r o n t o : Thomas N e l s o n & Sons,  Canadian  1967).  Tests  "~  2.  Additionally, type on  3.  of f a c i l i t y  these  same  Finally,  variables  of  Specific  these  between  of instructional  same  are there  outcome  between  (intelligence,  and school  program  factors  measures,  individual  socio-economic (type  what difference  status,  of f a c i l i t y  and  and' type  program)?  problem  points  -  around  which  type  the study  questions  i n general and type  has been  fully,  i n terms  s t a t i s t i c a l  stated  of f a c i l i t y  variables  problem  and type  are there  Questions  The  these  interactions  measures?  using  interactions  sex)  what  i t was  of specific  hypotheses  could  terms  designed.  questions  f o r which  answers  W i l l  of f a c i l i t y  two  of instructional  necessary  be  provides  from  drawn.  to  -  explore  the general  which  The  a r e sought  program  I n order  to restate  focal  testable  seven'specific  i n the study  a r e as  follows: 1.  type  either  measures  have  a  significant  o f achievement  effect  o r measures  of  on self-  concept? 2.  W i l l  type  cant  effect  measures 3.  of instructional on  there  type  of school  of  measures  have  a  s i g n i f i -  o f achievement  or  of self-concept?  W i l l  program  either  program  on  be  a  significant f a c i l i t y  either  self-concept?  interaction  and type  measures  of  between  instructional  o f achievement  or  measures  80 II.  Will and of  there either  W i l l  of  there  on measures  a  significant status  program  type  and of  and/or  measures Will  be  be  school  and  type„of  p i l o t  Vancouver 1.  study  Schools The  and/or  type  or  type  between  of  f a c i l i t y  instructional  on measures  interaction  on measures  individual  factors  (type  school  was  between  program  sex  and/or  of achievement  type  or  higher  student  level  inter-  difference  status,  and.sex)  of instructional  and  program '  f a c i l i t y ) ?  Study  conducted  i n January^  to determine  197J4. i *  whether  1  three  or not:  types  of schools  could  i n fact  types  of schools  could  be  be  differ-  entiated. 2.  The  four  school 3.  The each  found  i n one  d i s t r i c t .  sample school  size  would  i finstead  of  self-concept?  any s i g n i f i c a n t  i n order  four  of  (IQ, socio-economic  the  IQ  self-concept?  P i l o t  A  of school  of instructional  between  variables  interaction  significant  f a c i l i t y of  actions  a  type  there  program  of achievement  and e i t h e r  o r measures  either school  between  self-concept?  be  there  interaction  of instructional  socio-economic  W i l l  7.  significant  f a c i l i t y  achievement 6.  a  type  school  measures 5.  be  decrease of using  s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n a l l third  grade  students f i n a l  were  of  pr.bgram  or  more.  The DISC ment  included  The  1.  individually,  study  (open  schools  schools with  with  nonopen  open  nonopen  o f each  to obtain  type  cient  number  about be  school  would  18  t o 30  criterion"  f i l l e d  the researcher. that: the four  with  open  types  of  programs,  open  traditional  and t r a d i t i o n a l  the required  schools  that  to obtain  i n order  o f each  have  type  t o u t i l i z e  c r i t e r i o n " p i l o t  percent  i n the data was u s e d ,  number o f  d i s t r i c t .  i n the three  omitted  out by the  be  schools  s u f f i -  from  f o rt h i r d  grade  i t was f o u n d  o f the students  would  analyses.  When  a  that  these  i twas f o u n d  a  study.  was u s e d  schools,  There-  (two o r three),  d i s t r i c t s i n the f i n a l  t h e "two year  students  instru-  i n one school  of schools  researcher  When  years  teacher's  be f i l l e d  programs,  programs,  i twas d e c i d e d  several  type  f o rtwo  o f a  o r i fi tshould  schools  fore,  the  i n t h e same  programs).  I t was i m p o s s i b l e schools  could  t o differentiate  with  grade  nonopenness.  suggested  space  third  o f f a c i l i t y  an interview with  I t was p o s s i b l e  space  3.  Questionnaire  of the p i l o t  f o r the  was a n a p p r o p r i a t e  from  teachers  schools  2.  program  V  during  those  t h e openness  The DISC  results  type  V Questionnaire  to differentiate  out  only  classrooms  who h a d b e e n  a n d t h e same  instructional 5.  and nonopen  analysis o f the data,  students  k.  i n t h e open  have  "three  that t o  year  numbers  82 rose  considerably  original be  omitted  i n  fore,  i t was  would  be  the LL.  number  I t was who  that  third f i n a l  decided f o r  judged  by  out  both  the  the  of  "two  year  grade  of  would  the  the have  data.  to  There-  c r i t e r i o n "  students  31  appropriate,  and  did  the  instructional  program.  interview.  teacher's  about  would  the  researcher  be  used  i n  the  DISC  the  questions,  V  on  their  their  responses  tions  given had  on  or the  trouble  teachers  items i n  of  decided i n the  or  the  fact  were  asked  questionnaire  used  that  nonopenness  during the  f i n a l  to  DISC  study of  an  to  a  program.  that own,  tended  the  teacher's  teachers  the  openness  found  a  i t was  instructional  The  of  The  Therefore,  differentiate  V,  openness  opinion  Questionnaire  and  the  differentiate  their  researcher that  DISC  were  and/or  a  percent  children  analyses  third  questionnaire  V  grade  that  the  50  nearly  study.  f i l l e d  state  5.  of  the  used  f i n a l  so  when they  to  use  choices f i r s t  the  teachers  tended ties  of  interpreting  omit  some  instead of  according  page  to  f i l l e d  the some  to  out of  ranking  the  instruc-  questionnaire, of  the  31  items  1 07 in  the  that  1  questionnaire.  the  questionnaire  '  Therefore,  would  be  i t was  decided  administered  07  The u s e o f b l a n k s and t i e s c a u s e s c o r i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s , and a c c o r d i n g t o the i n s t r u c t i o n s r e c e i v e d by the r e s e a r c h e r i n correspondence w i t h Dr. Weiss (one o f the a u t h o r s o f the DISC V ) , t h e y s h o u l d be a v o i d e d i f p o s s i b l e . He a l s o s t r o n g l y r e c o m mended t h a t t h e DISC V be a d m i n i s t e r e d d u r i n g an i n t e r v i e w .  during  an  interview.  Selection  Selection  of  the  Teachers  of  the  Sample  Teachers  were  selected according  to  the  following  c r i t e r i a : 1.  The  2.  type  of  f a c i l i t y  i n which  f a c i l i t y  or  nonopen  f a c i l i t y .  The  grade  third 3.  The  division  type  school  of  design  open  f a c i l i t y  was  size  to  one  or  instructional open  more  used  i n the  equal  size  to  equal  open i n  f a c i l i t y date  only  twelve grade  of  four  to  as  a  two  defined  f i n a l  teachers  assigned:  based  classroom.  of  on In  space  the  taught  taught  the  as  a  teaching one  nonopen  f a c i l i t y  class  combined  teachers  of  to  open  space and  space  an  i n form  f a c i l i t y classrooms  two  of  the  to  nonopen accommo-  students.  taught  of  classrooms  The  designed  group  their  study,  equivalent  i n open  space  type  this  twelve  i n open  i n  program.  self-contained classrooms.  the  programs  open  used  self-contained classrooms,  and  order  been  they  nonopen was  Ten  study  teacher  i n a  or  teaching  area.  one  class In  tional  was  had  self-contained classrooms  f a c i l i t y  size  i n the  defined  teachers  twelve  they  program  c r i t e r i o n  used  common i n s t r u c t i o n a l  i n  program  f a c i l i t y  architectural  two  which  taught:  grade.  classroom: The  to  they  their  own  A l l third  self-contained classroom.  to  determine  could  be  whether  c l a s s e d as  or  not  open  or  a  teacher's nonopen,  the  instrucDISC  V  8L; Questionnaire  (Dimensions  administered  by  during  lunch  the  their  the  using  31  items the  discussed  i n terms  of  Any  or  which  terms  to  the  ly  answered  their then  teacher  own  could  be  classed  the  items  are  school  natives  or  similar  i s defined  The  along  The  ranking  and  one  set  for  each  item  are  then  summed  over  i n  interval  openness  procedure weights  i n  the  ^°^Traub,  the  et  and  of  31  scoring of with  f o r  31 0  a l . , bp_.  one  the  interval the  the  0  -  items -  of  1.  yielding  pp.  aspect  by  most  a  the class-  items  of to  either  f o r  on  four a  options  yielding  index  of  alter-  i s based  individual  69-83.  the focus  "open"  weights  an  of  set  31  A l l  the  contain  pro-  chapter.  the  forms  31•  c i t . ,  on  descrip-  education.  ranks,  The  i n turn  higher  which  that  the  explained  individual-  further  or  items  assigned  then  the  to  from  set  program.  i n this  i s followed  continuum  majority  limited  of  a  on  dimension  and  instructional  A  open  program  read  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .were  that  extent of  were  questionnaire  i f their  such  During  further  teacher  later  practices the  were  nonopen.  i s  classroom  alternatives.  see  or  V  teachers  instructional  completed  i s the  b r i e f l y ,  constructed  the  i s given  greater  the  of  to  DISC  the  own  Each  The  open  i n format:  or  "open".  five  the  reflects  program  item  the  as  grade  questionnaire  d i f f i c u l t y  items  form.  third  was  interview technique.  the  caused  used  scoring of  program  of  researcher  procedure  obtained,  an  Questionnaire) 28  the  teacher's  31  the  the  score  least  of  to  researcher.  questionnaire  The  the  each  the  by  of  room  by  scored  grams tion  items  Schooling  researcher hour  i n t e r v i e w , the  of  a  item of  score scores  program  85 In points which  this  above were  study, the  found  scores  be  were  found  to  (17.5) were c l a s s e d as  median to  which  at  least  two  (13.5) were c l a s s e d as n o n o p e n .  points  These  be  open,  below  figures  at  and  the  were  least  two  scores  median chosen  be-  1 09 cause  of  previous  Therefore, had  been  research one  administered  scores  of  i t s third  either  of  the  two  The  mean  program. teachers teacher means  i n this sample  and  nonopen  of  the  was  grade  score  school 2k  standard  eleven  omitted  used  i n this  i n which study  did  not  clearly  by  of  the  four  third  ten  the  study  are  V  i n  scores  presented  V  the into  instructional  elementary  DISC  DISC  f a l l  type  resulted  the  since  to  This  from  deviations of  questionnaire.  the  15.8.  teachers  the  from  according  obtained was  on  schools  teachers  groupings  of  programs  conducted  grade a  f i n a l  schools. f o r  open  i n Table  The and I.  TABLE I M E A N S AND S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N S OP T H E DISC SCORES FOR O P E N AND NONOPEN I N S T R U C T I O N A L PROGRAMS  Number o f Teachers Open  Programs  Nonopen  Programs  Mean  Standard Deviation  13  20.12  2.0k  11  10.k3  1.7k  When t h e f i r s t v e r s i o n o f t h e D I S C ( D I S C I ) was empiri c a l l y v a l i d a t e d by i t s a u t h o r s i n an e x e m p l a r open space school and an exemplar t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l i n M e t r o p o l i t a n T o r o n t o , the mean s c o r e o b t a i n e d by the t e a c h e r s i n the open space school was 20.18 w h i l e the mean s c o r e o b t a i n e d by the t e a c h e r s i n the t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l was 11.27. W h e n t h e D I S C I I (22 i t e m s ) was a d m i n i s t e r e d t o kk9 t e a c h e r s i n 30 O n t a r i o s c h o o l s t h e m e a n was 10.37 w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 2.2k. (The sample c o n s i s t e d o f 18 t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l s , 6 open s c h o o l s , and 6 s c h o o l s w i t h open space a d d i t i o n s . ) t 0 9  86 A used  l i s t i n g  i n this  scores type  are  of  twelve  the  mean  nonopen 1.37  study  grouped  teachers  score  i s presented  i n Table  according  type  to  program,  i n open  the  DISC  the  of  mean  f a c i l i t y V  f o r the  that  i s a  mean to  adopt  adopted  DISC  by  reached  teachers  i n nonopen  by  et  large  Traub was  are  teachers'  score  the  on  DISC  teachers  i n  more  f a c i l i t i e s . the  to  V  second  f o r  while the  difference i n  f o r teachers  a l . , when  than  i s 16.36,  slightly  administered  Ontario  When t h e rather  tendency  which  teachers  f a c i l i t y  This  programs  questionnaire i n a  there  I I .  twelve  may  2ii  f o r the  classrooms  i s 1LL.99.  was  schools  scores  classrooms  programs clusion  on  DISC  f a c i l i t y  f a c i l i t i e s  the  individual  instructional  the  of  of  means  i n  open  open  than  This  con-  version  I4.I4.9 t e a c h e r s  i n  of  30  city.  T h e a v e r a g e D I S C ( I I ) s c o r e f o r I4J4.9 t e a c h e r s i n 30 schools i s 10.37, w h i l e the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n i s 2.2li. The r e s u l t s a l s o i n d i c a t e d a small but s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant d i f f e r e n c e i n the type of program found i n schools of different a r c h i t e c t u r e . As i s c l e a r f r o m t h e means r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 2, O p e n = 1 1 . L L 6 , T r a d i t i o n a l = 1 0 . 0 6 , t e a c h e r s from open a r c h i t e c t u r e schools r e p o r t t h a t t h e i r programs are m o r e o p e n t h a n do t e a c h e r s f r o m t h e t r a d i t i o n a l architecture schools....Thus i t a p p e a r s t h a t o p e n a r c h i t e c t u r e may have a small e f f e c t i n the d i r e c t i o n of making a school program more open than the program o f a comparable s c h o o l of t r a d i t i o n a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . However, the e f f e c t i s not large. This a  1973  DISC  same  study to  a  c o n c l u s i o n was  when  f i n a l  sample  obtained  results,  teachers  i n open  Traub,  they  they areas  et  reached  administered of  212  adopt  a l . , op.  the  "that open  c i t . .  p.  D i l l i n g  third  elementary  concluded to  by  Tran  version of  teachers. there  and  i s a  education  the  Prom  their  tendency  programs.  i n  for  111  80.  H. J . D i l l i n g a n d C h a u T h i T r a n , "A C o m p a r i s o n o f T e a c h e r - P u p i l V e r b a l I n t e r a c t i o n i n Open-Plan and C l o s e d C l a s s rooms." ( O n t a r i o : S c a r b o r o u g h B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 1973), p. 11. 1 1 1  87  TABLE I I PROGRAM  Open School  OPENNESS SCORES OF TEACHERS AND NONOPEN F A C I L I T I E S  Nonopen  F a c i l i t i e s Teacher  DISC  Score  OPEN  F a c i l i t i e s  Teacher  DISC  Score  F F  13 1k  21.6 21.8  20.6 20.9 20.2 20.8  G G  15 16  19.0 17.k  H, H  17 18  18.2 19.2  8 9 10  10.8 9.9 9.0  I I I  19 20 21  11 . k 10.1 7.2  11 12  13.5 8.8  J J J  22 23 2k  12.k 10.6 11 . 0  A  1  19.0  B B  2 3  25.0 17.8  C C C C  k 5 6 7  D D D E E  Note:  School  IN  Instructional were c l a s s i f i were c l a s s i f i The t e a c h e r s but i n d i f f e r  programs o f t e a c h e r s above dashed line e d as open, and those below dashed line e d as nonopen. i n s c h o o l s B a n d E w e r e i n t h e same s c h o o l , e n t open space classrooms.  88 In  order  teachers mation  to  marital cate  was  status,  held,  and  the  collected  the  were  three  teachers  were  Teaching  experience  Selection  of  Once had  been  gram  students sample ed  cerned  only  one  type  study  those  grade  conducted  student  group,  open  the  group  was  from  A l l 2li  teachers  information I I I . two  had  of  three  A l l at  the  were  single.  years.  grade  for  two  or  a l l 361+  main  which  g i r l s While  analysis  some  used  by  years. and  students  the  While  taught  f a c i l i t i e s  168  pro-  I4.I4.2 t h i r d  their  students  more  nonopen  instructional  classrooms,  been  196  and of  selected.  had  of  type  classrooms,  students.  using the  to  and  consisted  were  the  third  student  third  from  sex, c e r t i f i -  Twenty and  i n  teaching  except  38  197li,  to  i n Table  divorced,  i n their  program  36I1  of  training.  infor-  i n June;,  background  to  student  instructional  of  the  one  i n their  f a c i l i t y  group  type  from  according  i n the  of  teacher  i n f o r m a t i o n as  a l l teachers  was  ranged  the  with  and  participating  a  teacher  i s presented  teachers  u t i l i z e d  used  the  Students  2ii  became  not  experience.  of  university  a l l LLLL2 s t u d e n t s  on  same  the  the  teaching  summary  married,  selected  they  of  teachers  of  each  background,  female,  years  by  background  academic  A  or  characteristics,  out  teacher  forms.  teachers  least  f i l l e d  amount  from  whether  i n other  provide  returned  2li  determine  differed  sheet  order  to  f i n a l  data  study  who  had  preliminary  i n the  "two  i n the  study,  coni n  type  "two f o r  collect-  was  been  same  This boys  student  were  the  the  grade  a  the of  year" total  analyses  year" stepwise  89  TABLE I I I SUMMARY  Background  1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  6.  7.  OF  TEACHER  Item  Number o f T e a c h e r s Number o f M a l e s Number o f F e m a l e s Average Age Number M a r r i e d Average Number o f Years o f University Training Average Number o f Years Teaching Experience Number o f Teachers in C e r t i f i c a t i o n Classifications EC I (1 y e a r ) * EB I I ( 2 y e a r s ) * EA I I I ( 3 y e a r s ) * PC I V ( 4 y e a r s ) * PB V (5 y e a r s ) * with degree PA V I ( 6 o r more years with Bachelors & Masters Degree)*  *  BACKGROUND  INFORMATION  Instructional  Progran  F a c i l i t y  Open  Nonopen  Open  Nonopen  13.0 0.0 13.0 32.2 12.0 3.9  11.0 0.0 11.0 32.9 8.0 3.1  12.0 0.0 12.0 30.5 10.0 3.8  12.0 0.0 12.0 34.5 10.0 3.3  8.4  9.8  7.3  10.7  0.0 0.0 6.0 2.0 5.0  0.0 1.0 8.0 2.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 6.0 3.0 3.0  0.0 1.0 8.0 1 .0 2.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  References are to years basic teacher training.  o f approved  study,  including  regression,  used  the  same  and  f o r whom  in  a  type  final  g i r l s ) . sample  A was  of  data  f a c i l i t y  there  sample  only  was of  numerical selected  321  f o r those and  program  complete third  breakdown  data grade on  i s presented  how  students  who  f o r at  least  available. students this  i n Tables  056  final IV  and  had  been  two  This  years, resulted  hoys, student V.  i n  165  TABLE I V STUDENT GROUPS ACCORDING TO F A C I L I T Y Type o f P r o g r a m & Type o f F a c i l i t y  Total Student Enrollment J u n e , 1974 Boys G i r l s  Two Y e a r Sample  Final Sample  T o t a l Boys G i r l s  Two Y e a r *  T o t a l . Boys G i r l s  Total  OPEN F A C I L I T Y Open P r o g r a m 3 schools  36  ; 57  "93  33  48  81  30  42  72  OPEN F A C I L I T Y Nonopen P r o g r a m 2 schools  58  46  104  45  42  87  42  36  78  Grand T o t a l f o r Open F a c i l i t y Group  94  103  197  78  90  168  72  78  150  NONOPEN F A C I L I T Y Open P r o g r a m 3 schools .  60  58  118  45  50  95  40  43  83  NONOPEN F A C I L I T Y Nonopen P r o g r a m 2 schools  56  71  127  45  56  101  44  44  88  Grand T o t a l f o r Nonopen F a c i l i t y Group  116  129  245  90  106  196  84  87  171  *Sample u s e d i n f i n a l d a t a  analyses  TABLE V STUDENT GROUPS ACCORDING TO PROGRAM Type o f Program & Type o f F a c i l i t y  Total.Student Enrollment J u n e , 1974 Boys  Girls  OPEN PROGRAM Open F a c i l i t y 3 schools  36  57  OPEN PROGRAM Nonopen F a c i l i t y 3 schools  60  Grand T o t a l f o r Open P r o g r a m Group  Sample  Final  Two Y e a r  Sample * Boys  Girls  93  33  48  81  30  42  72  58  118  45  50  95  40  43  83  96  115  211  78  98  176  70  85  155  NONOPEN PROGRAM Open F a c i l i t y 2 schools  58  46  104  45  42  87  42  36  78  NONOPEN PROGRAM Nonopen F a c i l i t y 2 schools  56  71  127  45  56  101  44  44  88  -Grand T o t a l f o r N o n o p e n F a c i l i t y 114  117  231  90  98  188  86  80  166  *Sample used i n f i n a l  Total  Two Y e a r  analyses  T o t a l Boys G i r l s  Total  93 Collection  Instruments 1.  the  i spart  Canadian level  Test  (P2/F1)  series  a b i l i t i e s  The s e r i e s  consists  test  using  There  are four  Tests.  i td i r e c t l y  Norms  i n which  The base with  grade  229  schools  were  used  three  norms  reported  Test  were  based,  o f the test  Norms  grade. oral  were  established  English  were  three  classes,  t o p r o v i d e norms Of t h e  f o rt h e grade  three  sample  of  of  was a group  o f  although a total  of  f o ra l l grade  31,739 p u p i l s  i n grade  t h e Kuder  Tests,  obtained i n  was t h e l a n g u a g e  f o rt h e norms  k,273 w e r e  by  Lorge-Thorndike  point  using  f o r the  a . s t r a t i f i e d " random  through nine).  a s .769  and  subtests:  f o rt h e . l a t t e r  and November(1966)-on  schools  a b i l i t y  short  t o t h e Canadian  123  (grades  materials  concepts.  A b i l i t i e s  Edition.  instruction.  and t h i r d  second  doesn't  relating  schools  The  c o n c e p t s , m u l t i - m e n t a l ("one t h a t  Cognitive  Canadian  and the  vocabu-  and quantitative  Multi-Level  of the Cognitive  oral  Canadian  October  p i c t o r i a l  to assess  kindergarten  f o r use i n the primary grades  relational  belong"),  designed from  (Primary I I ) i s f o r use i n second  instructions.  the  test  o f cognitive  nine.  Test  Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence  i s a group  lary,  A b i l i t i e s  o f an integrated  grade  A b i l i t i e s  It  Cognitive  development  through  Data  Used  The Canadian It  of  three.  on The  Richardson Formula level.  This  levels whom r e l i #21  i s  figure i s  9Lbased  on a representative  o f 300 g r a d e  sample  three  pupils  11? from 2.  t h estandardization  The Canadian  Tests  o f Basic  It  i sa n a t i o n a l l y  of  eleven separate tests  this  study, only  bulary,  Reading  Mathematics Skills Some  four  dissertations,  cooperative the  Canadian  preceded  Intelligence The  program  enterprise.  test  S k i l l s ,  and a large  Tests  jointly  Of t h e 25,123  Tests  (Voca-  S k i l l s .  doctoral Tests.  i n 1966 was a and authors o f  Canadian  Lorge-Thorndike  o f Canadian  o n whom  I n  o f Basic  o f t h eIowa  and carried  pupils  used  o f Basic  several  Tests  number  eight.  Concepts, and  t h ep u b l i s h e r s  o f Basic  was p l a n n e d  were  The Canadian  t h econstruction  consisting  through  Mathematics  o f t h eCanadian  Tests,  three  including  involving  Tests  achievement  o f t h eIowa  o f research,  effort  2)  o f t h eeleven subtests  Solving).  standardization  (Form  f o r grades  Comprehension,  Problem  years  Skills  standardized  i sa modification  five  The  program.  schools.  outas a  t h enorms  single were  113 based, 3.  Sears It  3,974  were  i ngrade  Self-Concept Inventory  i sa n a b b r e v i a t e d  developed  by Pauline  inventory  was f i r s t  1  1  2  three.  Robert  form  (LL8 i t e m s )  Sears. used  This  o f an  shorter  by Pauline  L. Thorndike, E l i z a b e t h  Sears Hagen,  inventory  version i n 1966.  o f t h e When  and Irving  Lorge,  op. c i t . 1 1  visors  - ^ E t h e l M. K i n g , e d . , Manual f o r Administrators. Supera n d C o u n s e l l o r s ( T o r o n t o : Thomas N e l s o n . & Sons, 1 9 6 8 ) .  95 the  Kuder-Richardson  shorter  v e r s i o n on  r e l i a b i l i t y then,  both  f o r  r e l i a b i l i t y a  the  population total  versions  was  of  test  the  32  of was  Sears  calculated third  found  f o r  the  graders,  to  .90.  be  Self-Concept  the Since  Inventory  have  11k been k.  The  used  i n a  Dimensions 31  It  i s a  to  assess  the in  of  item the  the  DISC  teacher  extent  were  number  The  of  items  of  cational  the  Kohl.  test  theory,  classroom  revised  individuals space were  was It and  only  used  to  the  i n  The  literature Bussis  refine  scrutiny  Ontario  embodies  dimensions on  and  and  of  a  i n  used  open  edu-  Chittenden,  questionnaire to  teaching.  had  experience  The  f i r s t  to  a  further. the  after  evaluated  V)  program  backgrounds  who  v a l i d a t e d by was  were  the  times  s t i l l  the  (-DISC  was  developed,  validate i t . team  of  edu-  sociology,  construction, administration,organizational  administered  refined  Once  several  schools.  school's  from  ^  developed  education.  representing  psychology,  was  a  w r i t i n g s of  subjected  workers  and  which open  procedures  studies.  Questionnaire  identified  and  were  research  questionnaire  to  particularly  Peatherstone,  of  Schooling  characteristics  cation,  a  number  that  DISC DISC  through  and  This of  the  efforts  working  of  Ontario  Charles  the  i n and  versions  resulted  I I I and V,  addition,  second  number  work  In  DISC f i n a l  of  a  Fisher were  item team  of  observing  open  of.the. DISC  teachers,  i n DISC  IV  each  and  then  I I I , which  (see  Appendix  further  version of  the  refined question-  11k' dence  The a b o v e i n f o r m a t i o n was w i t h Dr. P a u l i n e Sears.  obtained  through  A).  correspon-  96 naire  was  DISC of  was  developed. selected  other  by  The  Bussis  f i f t h  f o r use  procedures  examined. oped  The  for  by  the  f i n a l  included  Chittenden,  1  1  version  writer only  d e s c r i b i n g open  examination and  and  ^  of  after  education  the  a  number  had  been  procedures  Walberg  the  devel-  and  Thomas,  the  focus  1 1  ^  117 and  L i l l i a n  three V  validated  program as  Canadian  ber  of  part  a  of  of the  result  the  DISC  instrument  The  writer's opinion  other  of  would  instruments  similar  and  V,  since  i t had  i t was  f e l t  degrees  and  the  by  of  V  selected  was  a  used Fisher  to  used  both  authors  the of  and  large i n  number a  only,  a l l y\ of  openness.  format the  num-  used  parts  program  both  the  refined  been  that  the  of  i n  Although  of  focus  been  testing  already  supported  examined  DISC  w r i t e r decided  reflect i s  the  i t had  studies. the  that  to  the  extensive  because  the  found  Therefore,  research DISC  was  quite  openness  schools,  Canadian  two  items  was  I t  Questionnaire.  assess  of  Katz.  instruments  DISC to  G.  of  DISC  the  118  V. .  11 5 < A n n e M. B u s s i s a n d E d w a r d A . C h i t t e n d e n , Analysis of an A p p r o a c h t o Open E d u c a t i o n ( P r i n c e t o n , N. J . : E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e , 1970). 11 A ^ H e r b e r t J . W a l b e r g and Susan C h r i s t i e Thomas, Charac-. t e r i s t i c s o f Open E d u c a t i o n : T o w a r d an O p e r a t i o n a l Definition (Newton, Massachusetts: Educational Development Center, 1971)•  117  'D. D w a i n H e a r n , J o e l B u r d i n , a n d L i l i a n K a t z , eds., C u r r e n t R e s e a r c h and P e r s p e c t i v e s i n Open E d u c a t i o n (Washington: American Association of Elementary-Kindergarten-Nursery Educa-  tors,  1972),  118  1-13.  pp.  Traub,  et  a l . , op_.  c i t . ,  pp.  69-83.  97 However, found  when  that  t h eDISC  theresults  content  (items  similar  i nboth  program.  It  used  o f 1961  variety  This  developed  1951 .  tests  t o be q u i t e  and both  were  i n 1967  found  types  o f  favoured  t h e open  an index  classifies  1  index  by Blishen using 2  o f social taken  data  Blisheni n class.  from  occupations  including  i s a second  i n Canada  by Bernard  t h e s c a l e were  which  income  The  the decennial according  t o a  and years  o f  version o f an earlier from  data  thedecennial  index  census  0  testing  instruments  a r epresented administered March,  trained  tended  Followed  The  during  eight)  i t was  on o r g a n i z a t i o n o f  f o r Occupations  of characteristics  school.  were  Index  t o give  t o construct  Sequence  the section  o f f a c i l i t i e s  developed  i norder  census  study  types  by t h ewriter,  group.  i sa scale  of  one through  Socio-Economic  Canada  for  The d i f f e r e n c e s which  program The  V was s c o r e d  i nTable  1971+*  1971+•  used  i n the  and instruments  o r a trained  assistant  The a s s i s t a n t  was  i ntheadministration o f the three  The a s s i s t a n t  who h a d w o r k e d  sequence  A l l tests  May, a n d June,  by theresearcher  researcher  VI.  by theresearcher  A p r i l ,  i nA p r i l ,  and testing  as a tester  was a n  experienced  and researcher  i n the  past.  1 20  Bernard  R. B l i s h e n ,  e t a l . , eds.,  op_. c i t . .  pp.  69-83.  98 TABLE TESTING  INSTRUMENTS  Instruments  Dimensions  Canadian  Sears  Tests  The  Dimensions by  and  SEQUENCE  Sequence  Test,  Primary  I I  S k i l l s  of Schooling  the researcher  197k 1971+  March, April,  Inventory  of Basic  the schools  AND  Questionnaire  A b i l i t i e s  Self-Concept  Canadian  in  of Schooling  Cognitive  VI  Questionnaire during  197k  April, May,  197k  April, May, June,  197k  June,  1971+  was  t h e months  197k 1971+  administered of March  and  April. An  I . Q.  sessions April  test  The  edition  f e l t  d i f f i c u l t y  f o rthose  items  read  checked  appropriate. by  of the Sears  assistant  four  that  students  test  with  was  May,  might  reading As  which  each he  administered  or the trained  subtests  April,  the vocabulary  o f f t h e answer  The  Self-Concept  during  to the students.  the researcher The  and the trained  to a l l subjects  i t was  were  to a l lsubjects  i n two during  197k.  1966  administered  student  administered  by the researcher  o r May,  Because  was  Inventory and June,  cause  was  a  a l lof the  read,  o r she f e l t during  1971+.  some  problems, item  was  was  single  each most session  assistant.  of the standardized  Canadian  Tests  of  Basic  S k i l l s  assistant  i n two  During obtained the of  were  same  the  individual  schools  income.  by  index  the the  month  who  study  Ho^  test  the  child  There  w i l l  between There  the  w i l l  between There type on  be  of  measures  Ho^  June,  the 197k.  information on  the  was  occupation  the major  then  used  according  trained  to  to the  of  source obtain  a  scale  Procedures  method  of  research  was  used  i n  the  following hypotheses:  measures  H02  was  and  Blishen.  quasi-experimental  to  of  provided  Experimental  A  month  child  information  f o r each  researcher  period,  f o r each  family  This  by  during  four  i n each  socio-economic developed  sessions  this  from  family  administered  the  w i l l of  two no  types  two be  no  of  self-concept  d i f f e r e n c e s on  or measures  of  of  instructional  programs.  interaction  and  instructional  of  type  of  achievement  either  self-concept  significant  measures  either  f a c i l i t i e s .  significant  types  d i f f e r e n c e s on  or measures  of  achievement  f a c i l i t y  either  significant  achievement  be  of  no  between program  or measures  of  self-concept. Ho^  There IQ  and  w i l l  be  either  f a c i l i t y  on  no  significant  type  of program  measures  self-concept.  of  interaction and/or  achievement  type  between of  or measures  of  100 Ho^  There and  w i l l  either  measures Ho^  There and  SES,  of the  order the  grade T  1  A  and  program  2  T^  A  type  B  Group:  between  school:  and- t y p e  on  self-concept. inter-  variables  factors  sex  of facility*  of  difference  on  self-concept.  type  o r measures  individual  72  were  (IQ,  (type of  instuc-  o f ; f a c i l i t y ) .  :  using  the independent of school  The  grade  four  open  f a c i l i t y  been  taught  by  o f two  t h i r d  grade  five  open  been  taught  a  minimum  83  t h i r d  an open  (30  measures  males, (seven  that  instructional  the following k2  o f 321  four  t h i r d  groups:  females)  from  t e a c h e r s ) who  instructional  children  (k2  classrooms a nonopen  males, (five  program  36  had  f o r a  females)  t e a c h e r s ) who  instructional  program  from had f o r  years  children  (kO m a l e s ,  six  self-contained  classrooms  had  been  an open  taught  of  effects  years  o f two grade  crossed design i n  and type  classrooms  space by  2X2  and a f f e c t i v e  children  space  a  and i n t e r a c t i o n  design produced  t h i r d  78  tested  the cognitive  children.  Group:  of  interaction  and/or  SES  of f a c i l i t y  significant higher level  sex) and~the  minimum T  significant  no  type  between  Analysis  had on  Group:  be  and/or  o f program  between  to establish  program,  no  interaction  o r measures  o f achievement  hypotheses  factors,  significant o f program  type  w i l l  t i o n a l  The  be  either  actions  Design  type  w i l l  There  no  o f achievement  measures Eoj  be  by  k3  females)  ( s i x teachers)  instructional  from  who  program  101 for  T-  88  B Group:  a minimum third  from who  had been  geometric  presented  differences  same  that  between  dependent  action  of cognitive  analysis school  o f two  teachers)  i n s t r u c t i o n a l  years.  socio-economic  sis  has been  and  Ward,  1 PO  factors  design i s  variables.  were  used  analysis  described Jennings,  as  The  f o r interand the  individual  and f o r i n t e r of variables  as  Sex, i n t e l l i g e n c e , and covariates.  approach  Kerlinger  data  between  two s e t s  b y many w r i t e r s . 1 P1  outcomes).  and f a c i l i t y )  variables,  of these  effect  had on t h e dependent  t o examine  (program  and dependent  status  f o rmain  and a f f e c t i v e  and f o r i n t e r a c t i o n s  combinations  regression  to test  was u t i l i z e d  factors  t o t h e dependent  The  (six  of the research  was u s e d  s p e c i f i c school  variables  between  related  classrooms  females)  i n Chapter IV.  analysis  variables,  difference  liii  by a nonopen  f o r a minimum  VIII  (measures  regression  action  taught  (I4J4. m a l e s ,  Procedures  Regression  variables  children  representation  i n Table  S t a t i s t i c a l  grade  years  s i xs e l f - c o n t a i n e d  program A  o f two  employed Some  f o rthis  analy-  are Bottenberg  and Pedhazur,  1 PP  Overall  1 20 R. B o t t e n b e r g a n d J . W a r d , Applied Multiple Linear R e g r e s s i o n ( U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f Commerce: O f f i c e o f Technical Services, 1968).  1 21 Earl Jennings, "Fixed Effects Analysis of Variance Regression Analysis," Multivariate Behavioral Research 2 ( J a n u a r y 1967): 95-107.  1 22  F r e d N. K e r l i n g e r a n d E l a z a r J . P e d h a z u r , Regression i n Behavioral R e s e a r c h (New Y o r k : H o l t , and W i n s t o n , 1973).  Multiple Rinehart  by  102 and  123  Spiegal,  S m i t h , ^ ^ analysis  and have  The  12ii. Walberg, ^Kaufman  C o h e n . T h e  advantages  been  i n  discussed  regression  analysis  of  and  model  detail  presented  Sweet, of  by  this these  125 ''Draper  and  method  data  of  writers.  i n Figure  1  was  used  i n  the  data.  FIGURE REGRESSION Sources  of  1 MODEL  Variation  I Y  Yf  =/C0VARIATES  S C H 0 0 L  "\ + ' / I N T E R A C T I O N S ^ + /  I n t e l l i g e n c e (I)/ VVARIABLES Socio-Economic ( < F a c i l i t y ( F ) l Status(S) / {Program/ ( Sex(X) I VDISC(D) J I N D I V I D U A L STUDENT ^DIFFERENCES /  A Model case  stepwise  i n Figure the  multiple 1  for  covariates  economic  status,  1 23 J, Analysis of J  (1969):  and  were sex.  of  the  entered  J  Variables  regression  each  J / / [ 1  [individual JDifferences \ . I °y ( Program  analysis  dependent f i r s t :  Following  was  €  lUnexplainec JSampling < and /Random I Error N  run  variables.  intelligence,  these,  the  school  O v e r a l l a n d D. Spiegal, "Concerning Least Experimental Data," Psychological B u l l e t i n  In  the each  sociovariables,  Squares 72(5)  311-322.  H e r b e r t J. Walberg, "G e n e r a l i z e d R e g r e s s i o n Educational Research," American Educational Research 8(1) (January 1 9 7 1 ) : 71-91. 1  using  2  k  Models Journal  i n  1 2^ D. K a u f m a n a n d R. S w e e t , "Contrast Coding i n Least Regression Analysis," American Educational Research 2(1+) ( F a l l 1974): 359-379.  P  Squares Journal  1 26  (New  tic  N . R. D r a p e r a n d H. S m i t h , Applied Regression Analysis Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y & S o n s , 1966). 1 27 J. Cohen, "Multiple Regression as a G e n e r a l D a t a - A n a l y S y s t e m , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n 70(6) (1968): k26-kk3.  103 f a c i l i t y were  and program  entered  regression  next,  were  entered.  followed  analyses  were  The f i r s t  by higher  performed  order  order  interactions  interactions.  at the University  of "1  Columbia  Computing  The  individual  economic since on  status,  these  children's  difference  school  either  the  school  The  importance  variables by  because  and greater  the school  on cognitive  research.  Averch  than  significant  individual  than  measures.  individual that  t h e i r  the effect of the  difference  student  f i r s t ,  effect  effect of the  interactions  or the interactions  and a f f e c t i v e  et a l . , point  view  the effect  variables  socio-  the equation  on these  be g r e a t e r  and the i n d i v i d u a l  of these  a  the writer's  might  opt  program.  and self-concept  work  B r i t i s h  (intelligence,  into  t o have  on academic  i twas  02R  variables  of research  measures  variables  t h e BMD:  entered  a r e known  performance  variables  between  and sex) were  variables,  t h e outcome  using  difference  variables  Additionally,  on  Centre,  A l l  between  variables.  difference  measures  i s well  supported  out:  There i s considerable evidence that non-school factors may w e l l b e more i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t s o f educational outcomes, than a r e school f a c t o r s . The r e s e a r c h r e p e a t e d l y finds high c o r r e l a t i o n s between students' socio-economic backgrounds and educational outcomes.  ^W. J . Dixon, ed., Los Angeles: University 12  and  BMD: B i o m e d i c a l P r o g r a m s (Berkeley o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , R e v i s e d 1973).  % a r v e y A. A v e r c h , e t a l . , How E f f e c t i v e I s ( C a l i f o r n i a : Rand C o r p o r a t i o n , M a r c h 1972), p . 161. 1  2  Schooling?  10)4. Their a l . ,  1  3  conclusion  Stephens,  0  The  school  instructional  1 3 1  i s further  and  L a v i n .  variables,  program,  were  type  1  substantiated 3  by  Coleman  et  2  of  entered  f a c i l i t y  and  into  regression  the  type  of equa-  1 •> • " T h e f i r s t f i n d i n g i s t h a t s c h o o l s a r e r e m a r k a b l y similar i n t h e way t h e y r e l a t e t o t h e a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e i r pupils when the s o c i o - e c o n o m i c background o f t h e i r s t u d e n t s i s taken into account. I t i s known t h a t s o c i o - e c o n o m i c factors bear a strong r e l a t i o n to academic achievement. When t h e s e factors are s t a t i s t i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d , however, i t appears that d i f f e r e n c e s between schools account f o r only a small f r a c t i o n of the differences i n p u p i l achievement....It appears that v a r i a t i o n s i n the f a c i l i t i e s and c u r r i c u l u m s of the schools account f o r r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n i n p u p i l a c h i e v e m e n t i n s o f a r as t h i s i s m e a s u r e d by s t a n d a r d t e s t s ( J a m e s S. C o l e m a n , e t a l . , Equality of Educational O p p o r t u n i t y ( W a s h i n g t o n : U.S. Department of H e a l t h , Educ a t i o n , a n d W e l f a r e , 1 9 6 6 ) , p p . 21, 22)." " T o estimate the g e n e r a l academic performance that w i l l occur i n a g i v e n school, ask f i r s t about the g e n e r a l i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l o f the c h i l d r e n and the s o c i a l and e c o n o m i c b a c k g r o u n d o f t h e p a r e n t s (Kemp, 1955)* This w i l l account f o r almost sixty percent of a l lthe differenc e s ( J . M. S t e p h e n s , The P r o c e s s o f S c h o o l i n g . A P s y c h o l o g i c a l E x a m i n a t i o n (New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t a n d Winston, 1  3  1  1966), p .  50)."  " R e s e a r c h on t h i s l e v e l Elementary School] i s less frequent t h a n f o r any o t h e r . I n one s t u d y , i n t e l l i g e n c e was correlated with grades i n various subject areas, using a g r o u p o f s t u d e n t s f o r whom d a t a w e r e a v a i l a b l e f o r g r a d e s 2 t h r o u g h 1. Grades c o n s i s t e d of q u a l i t a t i v e evaluations ( g o o d , f a i r , and so o n ) . C o r r e l a t i o n s were f o u n d t o be q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t f r o m g r a d e s 2 t h r o u g h 7, averaging a r o u n d .65. In another study, Barnes correlated i n t e l l i gence s c o r e s w i t h s c o r e s on s u b t e s t s o f an achievement m e a s u r e f o r s t u d e n t s i n g r a d e s 1 t h r o u g h 1+. The correlat i o n s r a n g e d f r o m .31 t o .63 and showed a t e n d e n c y t o increase from f i r s t t o second grade. However, the magnitude o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s seemed f a i r l y stable from the s e c o n d t h r o u g h t h e f o u r t h g r a d e ( D a v i d E. L a v i n , The P r e d i c t i o n of Academic Performance (New Y o r k : Russell Sage F o u n d a t i o n , 1965), p. 57)." 1  3  2  105 tion  after  status,  and  The equation 1.  the three sex, had  last.  These  They  economic "higher These  two  actions  order"  omnibus  performed, specific order" A l l  and  program)  between and  individual  included  single  (intelligence,  interactions  ( f a c i l i t y  the  and  two  since  sources  there  between and  also  included  variables  w o u l d be  and  I f any  proved  order  t o be  reasons  equation,  socio-  i n t e r single  of  these  s i g n i f i c a n t ,  interactions  significance  the  combinations  would  to trace  i n these  be  the  "higher  interactions difference  school  variables,  variables  i n the  error  -  variables and  by  three  interactions  are assumed  t o be  increment  i t was  tested  to R  t r i v i a l  term.  was  added  f o r significance  to the by  regression  the F  or  between  2 each  socio-  (intelligence,  differences.  of higher  of  They  school  interactions  test  program)  differences  sex).  individual  difference  are included  As  the  interactions.  other  individual  interactions  interactions  between  "higher  interactions:  and s e x ) .  status,'arid  of  regression  of  differences  individual  sources  an  included  individual  status,  of  the  classes  ( f a c i l i t y  variables  pairs  into  interactions  order"  economic  and  included  interactions  school of  entered  variables of  socio-economic  p a r t i a l l e d out.  interactions  sources  intelligence,  were  order"  school  more  been  interactions  " f i r s t  2.  covariates,  ratio:  106  F  d f  ,df  = ^  R  2  /  d  f  8  2 "  1  Where  df  s  / \  f u l l / d f ' e r r  R  i s df R  f o r the  i s the  s  source  increment  multiple adding  i n the  correlation  the  source  squared  a f f e c t e d by-  into  the  equation  2 R  *  n  squared  e  after  a l l systematic  variation  have  regression Adjusted  means  were  computed  generalizability  the  and/or the procedures  classes and done  whose  school  to  had  c a r r y i n g out  •1 "5 O  that  of  was  133  the  t h e BMD:10V  findings of following  this  study  limitations  drawn  program  from  intact  (as measured  by  establish  the four  groups  examined  of  study  the design  randomization  other  selection  i s  of  employed.  f o r two  of  program.  Study  constant  since  the  i n the  been  the  years.  procedures, effects  could  third  grade  the DISC This i n  V)  was this  precluded  i t i s have  influenced  i  W. J . Dixon, ed., Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y JJ  the  sample  instructional  Therefore,  conceivable  and  The  design  i n order  study. the  Sample:  a l l of  sources included  using  of  the  by  1•  or  of  restricted design  some  been  correlation  equation  Limitations  The  multiple  BMD: Biomedical Programs (Berkeley of California Press, Revised 1973).  the  findings 2.  and to  this  of  f o r the  sample  small  were  made  through  training.  The  teachers. by  the  The  fact 3.  a  DISC:  sample the  these  of  a  researcher  of of  used  study i n the  DISC  was  program  could  be  classified  results  were  then  u t i l i z e d  to  v a l i d i t y  criterion  research  95,  96).  As  confident  that  i t was  (see  reasonably i n this  pp.  study  Because  of  to  these  limitations  the  findings  i n a  ed  the  subjects  of  findings similarly  depends on  the  upon  an  s t r i c t  this the  variables  open of  degree  the  and  the must  Further to  measured  which and  i t i s a  extensive  design be  and  feels to  procedures  a p p l i c a b i l i t y  examined  and  programs.  considered  other  the  rela-  instrument  nonopen  of  upon  revision  researcher  appropriate  sense  study.  depended  Although  result,  differentiate  used, to  a  nonopen.  the  this  undergone  not  program,  to  i t has  or  or  student  according  instrument,  were  the  groups  new  2k  divide  student  DISC.  I I I  the  whether  open  of  t i v e l y  among  and  female.  type  the  i n Table  determine as  be  study  to  of  attempts  limited  according  r e l i a b i l i t y  teacher  i s further  groups  and  The  their  i n background  similarity  to  i n  However,  reported  the  open  according  u t i l i z e d  study.  alike  used  from  questionnaire to  characteristics  teachers  had  selected.  were  l a r g e measure  The  the  the  teacher  teachers  a l l 2k  teachers  into  v a l i d i t y  use  a  grade  they  preceding  general!zability  that  teacher's  Since  teacher  indicate  program  randomly  use  that  third  s e l e c t e d by  years  not  the  assured  89)  two  and  reasonably  (p.  were  instructional  classrooms was  Twenty-four  f a c i l i t i e s  type  107  study.  Teachers:  nonopen the  of  subjects i n this  as  l i m i t -  of  these  score study.  108  CHAPTER  PRESENTATION  AND  ANALYSIS  Introductory  In main ual  effects  grade  nine  groups,  stepwise  OP  variables,  children  regression  intelligence,  DATA  was  used  on four  measures  differences  and  performance  of cognitive  I n order among  socio-economic  to study  f a c i l i t y ,  on t h e measured  of self-concept.  pre-existing  THE  Remarks  and i n t e r a c t i o n o f program,  measures  possible  as  study,  difference  third and  this  IV  the  individof  321  achievement  to adjust f o r  program  status,  and  f a c i l i t y  and sex were  used  covariates. The  four  consisted  measures  of four  o f achievement  subtests  used  of the Canadian  i n the Tests  study  of  Basic  1 3l± S k i l l s .  Their  throughout as  well  CTBS  1.  s k i l l s  tested  b.  knowledge  c.  sensitivity  CTBS  2.  this  involved  to fine  refers  below.  Vocabulary.  The  are:  o f words,  differences  context  abbreviations  i n word  i n choosing  i n a given  V,  subtest  o f the meaning  judgement  This  by  four  and  are provided  to Subtest  recognition and  i n meaning  t h e most  appropriate  situation  to Subtest  - ^ \ E t h e l M. K i n g , ed., Teacher's Basic Skills ( T o r o n t o : Thomas N e l s o n 1  of  refers  the use of tools  word  The  of the subtests  a.  and  «  This  i n the tables  of the study.  description  general  2  are abbreviated  the remainder  as a  1.  names  R,  Reading  Manual. & Sons,  Comprehen-  Canadian  1967).  Tests  109 sion. a.  b.  c.  The  general to  s k i l l s  details  -  implied  factual  purpose  -  purpose  or  t e s t e d by  recognize  to  details  develop  main  organization -  and  idea to  this  subtest  understand  stated  and  relationships  s k i l l s  i n discerning  of  a  develop  paragraph a b i l i t y  are:  or to  or  the  selection  organize  ideas d.  evaluation is  3.  CTBS  3.  subtest  This  refers  The  and  whole  The the  nine  nine  i n  evaluating  what  ,  Mathematics  classifications"  s k i l l s  (money),  This  tested  by  this  of  math  concepts  f o r  classifications:  equations,  numerals  refers  Solving.  M-2  and  fractions,  number  geometry,  systems,  and  to  The  Subtest  major  M-2,  " s k i l l  Mathematics categories"  f o r  are:  currency  (money),  measures  subtests  M-1  numbers  C T B S k.  a.  Subtest  understanding  following  measurement,  Test  s k i l l  are:  currency  Problem  to  " s k i l l  knowledge the  k.  develop  read  Concepts.  a.  to  of  of  the  and  whole  numbers  self-concept used  1966  short  i n the  version of  the  study Sears  were Self-  1 ^5 Concept tables  Inventory. and  J  ^  throughout  Their the  names  have  remainder  of  been the  abbreviated  study.  The  i n  the  nine  1 35 S e e A p p e n d i x e s C, D, and E f o r a f u r t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n and copy o f t h e S e a r s S e l f - C o n c e p t I n v e n t o r y . R e l i a b i l i t y scores f o r the i n v e n t o r y subtests are reported i n Appendix C for the t h i r d grade population used i n t h i s study.  110 abbreviations vided  as w e l l  a s t h e names  of the nine  subtests  are pro-  below 1.  SSCT  1 .  Physical  2.  SSCT  2.  Attractive  3.  SSCT  3.  Convergent  4-  SSCT i i .  Social  5.  SSCT  5.  Social  6.  SSCT  6.  Divergent  7.  SSCT  7.  Work  8.  SSCT  8.  Happy  9.  SSCT  9.  School  for  two  Measures economic  status  covariates tested  as  program  were  Appearance Mental  Relations  A b i l i t y with  Mental  Sex  A b i l i t y  Habits Qualities Subjects  other variables,  obtained  intelligence  f o r a l lsubjects,  of data.  of individual  and f a c i l i t y .  t h e Same  Virtues  i n the analysis sources  A b i l i t y  Scores  they  as  were  interactions  f o r the Canadian  socio-  and used  I n addition,  difference  and  with  Cognitive  1 36  _  A b i l i t i e s  T e s t , P r i m a r y I I , •*  intelligence, Occupations index  school  1  i n Canada  f o r each  analysis  and B l i s h e n s  subject.  a n d was  variables, The  dependent  1 3  symbols  tested  ?  variables  used  as t h e measure  Socio-Economic  was  used  S e x was as a  program and used  were  Index f o r  to obtain also  source  used  a  socio-economic  as a  covariate  of interaction  with  the- <  summarizing  the  and  s t a t i s t i c a l  ^ R o b e r t L. T h o r n d i k e , E l i z a b e t h Hagen, and I r v i n g C a n a d i a n C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s T e s t , P2/F1 ( T o r o n t o : Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1970). 1  3  i n the  f a c i l i t y .  t o represent the independent  i n tables  of  Lorge,  1 37 • ^ ' B e r n a r d R. B l i s h e n , e t a l . , e d s . , C a n a d i a n SocietyS o c i o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s (Toronto: M a c M i l l a n o f Canada, 1971),  pp.  ^95-509.  111 analyses  Method  are presented  of  Analysis  The  main  analysis  regression  analyses  hypotheses  stated  regression  analyses  dependent  sources In  were  that  I .  and f a c i l i t y  to control  followed a l l  o f 27  total As  each  and f o r t h e i r ' i n t e r a c t i o n  f o r individual differences  affect  treatment  was  tested  ratio.  Type  I  so t h a t The  order  interactions.  procedure  This  variables added  was  by  analyses.  =  A  entered  evaluating  separate  .05  tests.  level  of significance  were .  finally  resulted  i n a  equation.  equation, i t  separate  stepwise  showing  analyses  i n Appendix was  F  of the thirteen  table  of the thirteen regression found  These  used  the  f o rthe F.  f o r a l l  as  type  the corresponding  i n thirteen  c a n be  variables,  regression  f o r each  summary  enter-  taken  and then  to the regression  the  treatment  were  next.  procedure  i n each  followed  variables  they  school  interactions  dependent  statistical  sex were  and  f i r s t  f o r significance  error  status,  entering  f o r each  thirteen  analyses.  v a r i a b l e s , and r e s u l t e d  regression results  f i r s t  among  i n  were  was  differences  differences  o f program,  variable  This  dependent  equation  independent  new  of the thirteen  and type  higher-order  stepwise  differences.  i n a l l thirteen  by  univariate  groups,  the regression  f a c i l i t y  research  f o r s i g n i f i c a n t  ed  of  stepwise  to test  i n t e l l i g e n c e , socio-economic  covariates  of  the seven  f o r each  effect, into  series  Separate  performed  i n order  might  of a  to test  i n Chapter  of individual  order  subjects  consisted  designed  variables  between program with  i n Table V I I .  The  112  TABLE V I I SYMBOLS  Variable  USED  ANALYSIS  Variable  Symbols Used  1. 2. 3. 4.  IQ • SES SEX FACL  5.  DISC  (D)  6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.  CTBS CTBS CTBS  1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  CTBS SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT  I N STATISTICAL  1  (s) (X) (F)  Represented " 3  Intelligence Socio-Economic Status Male o r Female(coded -1, 1) Type o f S c h o o l F a c i l i t y Open o r Nonopen(coded -1, 1) Type o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l Program Open o r Nonopen(coded -1, 1) Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Mathematics Concepts Mathematics Problem S Physical A b i l i t y Attractive Appearance Convergent Mental A b i Social Relations with Social Virtues Divergent Mental A b i l Work H a b i t s Happy Qualities School Subjects  olving  l i t y Same  Sex  i t y  v a r i a b l e 6 through 9 a r e from the Canadian Tests o f B a s i c S k i l l s , a n d v a r i a b l e s 10 t h r o u g h 18 a r e f r o m t h e Sears Self-Concept Inventory  113 The reported  means,  standard  f o r t h e complete  deviations, and sample  were  intercorrelations  obtained  by using t h e  1 38 BMD:02R  program.  treatment program,  The means  groups  according  and sex,  Regression  were  Package.  t o type  obtained  sections  Descriptive Data  b.  Findings  The findings  number  data  data  analysis  321  type  o f  Triangular  o f the Analyses  analyses  of subjects  are organized  1  into  two  Tested  w a s 321  dependent  1 38 Dixon,  and type f o r ii3  children.  variables  children  sample)  whom t h e  VIII.accords  o f program.  Because  i n t h e two i n the f i n a l  and standard  socio-economic  are given  the f i n a l  e d . , op_.  Means  upon  i n Table  o f subjects u t i l i z e d  intelligence,  (hereafter called  groups  a r e shown  not available  t h e number  the variables  i n the four  a r e based  of f a c i l i t y ,  were  sample, ^  thirteen  t h e TRIP  i n R e l a t i o n t o t h e Hypotheses  o f the study  year  for  by using  f a c i l i t y ,  Data  t o s e x ,type  complete  of school  chapter:  a.  Descriptive  ing  o f the data  i n this  deviations f o r the  1 39 Results  Results  and standard  deviations  status,  f o r t h e sample  andt h e o f N  =  i n Table I X .  c i t .  1 39 . J a m e s H. B j e r r i n g a n d P a u l S e a g r a v e s , TRIP T r i a n g u l a r Regression Package (Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C., R e v i s e d J u n e 197!|.). ^"°36ii t h i r d g r a d e c h i l d r e n f a c i l i t y and program f o r a t l e a s t 1  h a d b e e n i n t h e same two years  type  of  11k TABLE  VIII  P I N A L C O M P O S I T I O N OP S T U D E N T S A M P L E A C C O R D I N G T Y P E OP F A C I L I T Y AND T Y P E OP S C H O O L P R O G R A M Type  of Instructional  Program  Open  -p •H rH •H  Nonopen  Open  F a c i l i t y  Open  Open  Program  Nonopen  CP  ft o  O CO P>4  TO  F a c i l i t y Program  M  =  30  M  =  k2  F  -  k2  F  =  36  N  =  72  N  =  78  <M  O  Nonopen  CD  Open  c  CD ft O  c o  Table among the  XXXII  the three  correlation  coefficients. the  thirteen  Program  Program  M  =  kk  P  =  k3  F  =  kk  N  =  83  N  =  88  i n Appendix G  between matrix  Table X dependent  the  f o r the complete  includes  intercorrelations  sample.  Except f o r  and socio-economic  i s characterized  to strong  This  status,  by markedly low  the intercorrelations  variables.  includes measures.  includes  intelligence  in  dependent  Nonopen  kO  by moderate  and  F a c i l i t y  =  characterized Appendix H  Nonopen  M  covariates  relationship  this  F a c i l i t y  correlation  relationships.  the intercorrelations  among  among  matrix Table  i s . XXXIII  covariates  TABLE I X MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF V A R I A B L E S  Mean  Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.  SES(S) IQ(D  CTBS GTBS CTBS CTBS SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT  1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  S. D.  41.45(38.72) 106.74 19.68(3.8)° 29.88(4.0)° 17.41(3.7K 12.88(4.0) 14.74 13.48 26.79 13.82 13:59, 27.01 12.90 14.46 27.91 h  a  14.36(12.25) 15.79 5.72 10.62 6.21 6.57 3.71 4.07 7.02 3.63 3.50 6.50 3.89 3.35 5.82  The n u m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e f e r t o t h e mean and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n f o r B l i s h e n ' s SocioEconomic Index f o r B r i t i s h Columbia, 1961. The n u m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e f e r t o t h e g r a d e equivalent scores f o rthe four subtests o f the Canadian Tests o f Basic S k i l l s .  TABLE  Variable  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.  5 1  INTERCORRELATIONS  AMONG D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S  1  4  2  1 2 3 k  .72 .65 .52  .6k .56  SSCT 1 SSCT 2 SSCT 3 S S C T [J. SSCT 5 SSCT 6 SSCT 7 SSCT 8 SSCT 9  .05 .06 .21 .03 .07 .16 .16 .11 .22  .05 .10 .23 .05 .11 .15 .22 .12 .26  CTBS CTBS CTBS CTBS  X  Variables 1 through t h r o u g h 13 a r e f r o m  3  ,6k .01 .Ok  .15 .01 -.Ok  .06 .14 -.01 .18  .09 .07 .22 .08.  .08 .06 .22 .08 .23  (n =  5  6  7  8  .05 .05 .01 .09  .06 .10 .07  .21 .23 .15 .22  .03 .05 .01 .08  .53 .52 •49 • 49 • 43 .53 • 47  .52 .56 .68 .73 .57 .71  .53 .51 .36 .53 .46  .47 • 43 .40 .35 .47 .30 • 45 .48  .Ok  k a r e from the Canadian Tests o f B a s i c the Sears Self-Concept Inventory.  321  10  11  12  .08  .16 .15 .06 .06  .16 .22 .14 .22  .11 .12 -.01 .08  .61 .45 .55 .54  •49 .53 .63  .53 .58  .56  9 .07 .11 -.Ok  S k i l l s ,  and v a r i a b l e s  5  117 Findings  i n Relation to  In to  Chapter  investigate  program  are  children cepts,  related  In  results  complete  and  the  measured  performance  reading  can the  they  XXXI  results  S k i l l s  regression  be  found  of  to  this  the  were  each  these  (Table  A  i s presented  XI,,Table  variable  and  at  to  least  one  school  least  one  individual  (intelligence,  SES,  subtests  i n Table  and  only  variable  sex).  i n  XIX  The  Tables  regression Tests  of  of  X I I .  the  In  of  the Sears  a l l of  through  XXXI)  Interactions  those  interactions  (program  student  I I I .  i n  dependent  summary  headings  Interactions refer  f a c i l i t y )  a  the  Higher  and  Canadian  under  and  involve at  the  the  Tables  referred  I  and  of  follow  thirteen  and  interactions  which  nine  99.  presented  presented  and  self-  hypotheses.  hypotheses  XII,  the  Level  are  of  con-  Presentation  the  of  grade  experimental  and  16  summary.of  f o r the  to  seven  pages  are  XI,  third  null  null  subtests  of  testable  of  study  i n Table  results  the  chapter.  forth  instructional  measures  analyses  seven  f o r  four  i s presented  Inventory  on  set  mathematics  stated i n Chapters  i n this  f o r the  Self-Concept tables  seven  were  of  nine  empirically  i n Appendix.F.  analyses  and  s t a t i s t i c a l  related  type  comprehension,  solving,  regression results  through  Basic  f a c i l i t y  r e s t a t e d as  investigated  questions  of  remainder  i n which  variables  analyses  of  Tested  experimental  explore  hypotheses  i n the  order  to  were  results  discussed specific  to  Hypotheses  problem  order  they  seven The  XIX  type  mathematics  questions,  the  how  seven  i n vocabulary,  concept.  These  I,  the  and/or  difference  TABLE X I •RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE FOUR OF' -THE CANADIAN TESTS OF BASIC S K I L L S  Fobs Vocabulary Achievement  Sources of Variation  Covariates Intelligence (I) SES(S) Sex(X) School Variables Facili'ty(F) Disc(D) FD Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI ,F,D:SIX *p<.05  , 1  179.184* 4.388* 16.071* .203 .355 .203  Fobs Reading Comprehension  153.807* 6.904* 17.919* 3.756 10.000* .051  SUBTESTS  I Fobs Mathematics Concepts  i  j Fobs Mathematics Problems  198.324* .432 10.865*  64.380* .233 6.938*  9.784* 6.054* 7.243*  3.837 1.744 .194  .203 .305 .000 1168 .152 .102 2.487 .000 .558  2.792 .254 1.878 1.777 .000 1.218 .203 .102 .711  .000 .000 .054 1.676 .162 .054 .000 2.000 .270  .194 .388 1.395 3.295 .078 .116 .000 .000 1.434  1.020 1 .020 .119 1.446  1.811 .541 1 .387 .711"  .126 1.369 1.532 .793  .323 1 .240 .827 .478  . 9 5 1 , 2 9 3 ~~ P  .95 3,293 F  =  3  2  ,  ,  8  6  8  4  TABLE X I I RESULTS OP REGRESSION A N A L Y S I S FOR THE NINE SUBTESTS OF THE SEARS SELF^.CONCEPT INVENTORY  Source o f Variation Covariates IQ(D  SES(S) Sex(X) Program Variables Facility(F) Disc(D) FD Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX *p<.05  Fobs SSCT 2  Fobs SSCT 3  Fobs SSCT 4  Fobs SSCT 5  Fobs SSCT 6  1.268 .070 34.437*  .377 1.384 2.233  3.766 .000 1.071  .093 .436 1.931  .870 .635 3.478  1.617 .000 .990  .070 2.570 2.535  .031 .314 2.767  .584 .195 5.974*  .436 .000 1.745  1.538 .000 10.803*  .352 2.570 .352 .387 .000 .000 1.444 .035 .035  1.415 .031 1.038 .337 .629 .063 .031 1.006 2.579  .032 .487 .942 .097 .357 '2.597 .714 .487 .455  .405 .748 .156 .717 .312 .343 .062 .187 1.277  2.441 .751 .153 1.256  .210 .178 1.342 .786  1.818 2.100 .541 .162  .644 .831 .997 .820  Fobs SSCT 1  Fobs SSCT 7  Fobs SSCT 8  Fobs SSCT 9  3.056 .199 9.734*  .064 1.146 .127  3.556 .888 3.079  .000 .264 3.333  1.262 .066 3.056  .000 .223 2.006  4.666* .000 2.921  .067 .301 .368 1.839 .268 2.575 1.035 .000 2.040  3.267 .825 .363 .858 .198 3.300 3.399 .033 .891  .133 .000 .133 .365 .033 .864 1.096 .698 .033  .000 .701 1.083 .605 .350 1.051 1.879 .127 2.070  .127 .000 .159 .000 .032 .159 .222 .063 .508  .803 2.319 1.070 1.003  1.045 1.441 2.222 1.045  1.639 3.156* .620 .819  .594 2.176 .170 1.635  .540 1.164 .899 .190  .95 1,293  =  5.88  •95 3,293  =  2  F  F  ,  6  4  120 Descriptive  data  according  t o type  presented  i n Table  variables  f o r which  subsequently means  three  The  variables  means  program In  i n Tables  XXXIV  large  were school  differences ducted  and  teen  selected  each  entered  interactions, interactions,  o f twenty-two  dependent  into  other.  nine  total  The  results  The  and  type I .  the researcher t o t h e two  of  of  five terms:,  individual were  with  con-  each  factors  resulted  i n  alone  seven  interactions,  and one f i v e - f a c t o r  f i v e  interaction f o r  f o r each of these  %  of  i n Appendix  tests  difference  terms  XV.  interaction  factors  three-factor  effects  of the school  measures  This  f o r the-  of f a c i l i t y ,  Significance  interaction  variables.  A  cell  f o r a l l thir-  i n relation  of the school  each  means  o f program,  of the individual with  cell  a n d XXXV  and f a c i l i t y .  t o be  These  i n Table  effects  variables, and the three  i n combination  total  and type  (IQ, SES, and s e x ) .  and w i t h  four-factor a  program  f o r the interaction  two-factor  the main  number o f i n t e r a c t i o n s  variables,  two  other  of f a c i l i t y  were  the unadjusted  are presented  are presented  to studying  found  s i g n i f i c a n t main  t o type  examined  the  found  dependent  s i m i l a r l y adjusted  f o r which  were  were  with  study  and sex, a r e  covariates.  according  type  variables  differences  means  i n the  of the five  variables  variables,  school  means  and t h e a d j u s t e d m a r g i n a l  addition  a  cell  XIV along  marginal  u t i l i z e d  of f a c i l i t y ,  f o r the three  i n Table  relevant  dependent  The  groups  type  significant  and program  unadjusted  of  XIII.  adjusted  dependent  f a c i l i t y  teen  o f program,  are presented  means.  on t h e f o u r  of the tests  t h i r -  are  TABLE X I I I D E S C R I P T I V E DATA FOR STUDENT SAMPLE ACCORDING TO TYPE OF F A C I L I T Y , TYPE OF PROGRAM, AND SEX ( N = 321 )  Open  FacilityP r o gram Sex Number  Nonopen  Open Male 30  Mean IQ  113.367  Mean SES  46.577  Nonopen Female 42  Male 42  Open  Female 36  Male 40  Nonopen Female 43  , Male 44  Female 44  107.000  108.905  106.694  110.050  106.372  104.705  99.364  41.000  40.507  43.728  42.431  40.787  38.455  39.389  1 22  TABLE X I V U N A D J U S T E D AND A D J U S T E D MEANS FOR THE F I V E D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S F O R WHICH S I G N I F I C A N T F I N D I N G S WERE F O U N D A C C O R D I N G TO P R O G R A M O R F A C I L I T Y (N =321)  Open  F a c i l i t y Program CTBS  2  a  Open UN  ADJ CTBS  3  a  UN ADJ  SSCT  3  b  UN ADJ  SSCT  5  b  UN ADJ  SSCT  9  b  UN ADJ  CTBS  Nonopen Nonopen  Open  Nonopen  30.96  32.42  27.94  28.58  29.38 ( 3 . 9 )  32.17 ( 4 . 1 )  27.39 ( 3 . 7 )  30.61  17.51  16.60  17.21  18.25  16.60 ( 3 . 7 )  16.40 ( 3 . 6 )  16.84 ( 3 . 7 )  19.35 ( 4 . 0 )  26.43  27.92  27.68  25.24  26.25  27.92  27.61  25.45  13.17  14.46  13.94  12.84  13.14  14.51  13.96  12.81  28.22  29.19  27.87  26.55  28.08  29.22  27.81  26.70  (4.0)  CTBS 2 r e f e r s t o a t e s t o f R e a d i n g C o m p r e h e n s i o n , 3 refers to a test o f Mathematics Concepts  SSCT 3 r e f e r s t o t h e s u b t e s t , SSCT 5 r e f e r s t o t h e s u b t e s t , S o c i a l to t h e s u b t e s t , S c h o o l S u b j e c t s ^numbers  i n parentheses  refer  Convergent Mental V i r t u e s , a n d SSCT  to grade  equivalent  and  A b i l i t y , 9 refers  scores  123  TABLE  XV  UNADJUSTED AND A D J U S T E D MARGINAL MEANS FOR T H E DEPENDENT V A R I A B L E S FOR WHICH S I G N I F I C A N T F I N D I N G S WERE FOUND A C C O R D I N G T O P R O G R A M OR FACILITY  Program  Open  F a c i l i t y  Open  Nonopen  CTBS 2 Reading UN Comprehension ADJ  30.39 29.34 28.31 ( 3 . 8 ) 3 1 . 3 4 ( 4 . 0 )  CTBS 3 Mathematics Concepts  UN ADJ  17.35 17.27(3.7)  SSCT 9 School Subjects  UN ADJ  Nonopen  a  a  numbers  17.48 18.06(3.9)  i nparentheses refer  17.04 16.50(3.7)  17.74 18.22(3.9)  28.73 28.67  27.19 27.24  t o grade  equivalent  scores  12k summarized The are  given  the  nine  i n Tables XI results below  of  one  of  between null  dependent  that found  of  F a c i l i t y  the  two  Hypothesis  but  of  null  hypotheses  achievement  and  f o r  was  shown  and  was  In Tables XI between and  this  i n the and  types  i t can  case  of  Toward  f o r two  f o r any  of  be  of  were  be  f a c i l i t y  seen  seen  From  that  the  f o r  Nonopen  School Subjects  Group. of  two  X I I , i t can  favoured the  Open F a c i l i t y  rejected  either  self-concept  School Subjects.  difference  rejected  of  on  f a c i l i t i e s .  rejected  i n T a b l e XV,  not  or measures  of  f o r Attitudes  was  differences  the  Therefore,  this the  dependent  other  of  the  eleven  variables.  two There  states: w i l l  measures between This  types  Concepts  favoured the  hypothesis  dependent  seven  significant  differences  Concepts  Group,  variables,  no  variables.  means  difference  the  measures  achievement  f o r Mathematics  Mathematics  null  be  hypothesis  significant  adjusted  four  of  self-concept.  w i l l  measures  the  tests  states:  There  This  the  f o r the  measures  Hypothesis  and X I I .  null  of the  be  no  significant  achievement two  hypothesis  types was  of  differences  o r measures  of  instructional  rejected  i n the  on  either  self-concept programs.  case  of  two  of  125 the  dependent  variables.  that  significant  gram  were  cepts.  found  From  differences f o rReading  the adjusted  seen  that  this  difference  dependent  favoured  the null  and X I I , i t c a n be  types  Comprehension shown  t h e nonopen  b u t was  was  seen  of instructional and Mathematics  i n T a b l e XV,  Comprehension  hypothesis  variables,  XI  between  means  f o rboth Reading  Therefore,  eleven  I n Tables  instructional  not rejected  Con-  i t c a n be  and Mathematics  rejected  pro-  Concepts,  program  group.  f o r two o f t h e  f o r any other  of the  variables.  Hypothesis  three There type on  states: w i l l  be  no  significant  of f a c i l i t y  either  and type  measures  interaction  between  of instructional  of achievement  program _  o r measures  of  self-concept. This the  null  dependent  A b i l i t y , these  variables,  and S o c i a l  interactions, 1.  open  2.  nonopen  3.  open  k.  nonopen  The XII,.  for  the four  Mathematics  open  program,  open  four  t o examine groups  the basis  were  of  compared:  f a c i l i t y  f a c i l i t y i n tabular  i n Figure  a r e shown  interaction  Concepts.  of  f a c i l i t y  are presented  groups  of three  f a c i l i t y  nonopen  form  i n the case  Concepts, Convergent Mental  I n order  nonopen  program,  and i n graphic  Mathematics  rejected  the following  program,  an ordinal  was  Virtues.  program,  results  and  dicate  hypothesis  Nonopen  2..  i n Table XIV.  form The  adjusted  The  f o r the dependent Programs  i n Tables XI, means  results i n variable  i n Nonopen  Facilities.  126  .19NONOPEN  FACILITIES  1817J  OPEN  FACILITIES  Mathematics Concept Scores  16^ r OPEN PROGRAMS  i1n NONOPEN PROGRAMS  28 _ 27 " 26 Convergent A b i l i t y Scores  Mental  25  I  OPEN " PROGRAMS 1  1 T  NONOPEN PROGRAMS  16 " 15 14 13 Social Virtue Scores  12  1  OPEN" PROGRAMS  FIGURE  NONOPEN PROGRAMS  2  A D J U S T E D MEANS FOR S I G N I F I C A N T I N T E R A C T I O N S OF F A C I L I T Y T Y P E ( O P E N V S N O N O P E N ) A N D P R O G R A M T Y P E ( O P E N V S N O N O P E N ) ON MATHEMATICS CONCEPTS, CONVERGENT MENTAL A B I L I T Y , AND S O C I A L VIRTUES  127 were  found  t o produce  Concepts  than  Programs  i n either  the  combination  higher  vergent  disordinal  A b i l i t y , than  Virtues, than  Programs  given  Open  Programs  produced  Open  given  significantly  rejected  f o r any o f the other  There and  nificant type  significantly  better  than  than  t e n dependent  Nonopen  Open  Programs  Social scores Nonopen  Open  hypothesis  variables,  Mental  scores  better  scores  the n u l l  o f the dependent  w i l l  either  indicated  be  no  type  significant of program  of achievement i n Tables  interactions  of f a c i l i t y .  rejected  scores  indicate  Programs was  b u t was  not  variables.  states:  measures As  Convergent  f o r the variable  Therefore,  f o r three  four  XIV  better  comf o r Con-  Nonopen F a c i l i t i e s , whereas  rejected  Hypothesis  means  i n Table  significantly  Likewise, produced  F a c i l i t i e s .  adjusted  Virtues  better  produced  any o f t h e other  The  Open  study,  Nonopen F a c i l i t i e s , whereas  significantly  F a c i l i t i e s .  i s , i n this  For the variable  produced  Nonopen Programs  Programs given  interaction.  That  than  and S o c i a l  i n Mathematics  and Nonopen Program,  and f a c i l i t y .  A b i l i t y  produced  Open  scores  scores  i n Nonopen F a c i l i t i e s , o r  of F a c i l i t y .  Concept  Nonopen Programs  Programs given  Open  Programs  higher  o f Nonopen F a c i l i t y  o f program  Mental  Open  type  Mathematics  binations  a  either  significantly  between  Therefore,  XI IQ  and  type  o r measures  and X I I ,  there  and e i t h e r  the null  f o r any o f the t h i r t e e n  interaction  of f a c i l i t y of  type  IQ on  self-concept.  were no  hypothesis  dependent  between  sig-  o f program was  variables.  not  or  128 Hypothesis  five  states:  There and  w i l l  either  measures As ficant type  indicated  f o r any  Hypothesis  s i x  ficant type  of  the  w i l l  f o r any  in  only  attempt  and  either  null  were  type  dependent  SES on  self-concept.  of  hypothesis  no  signi-  program was  or.  not  variables.  or  type  of  measures  of  XII,  between  sex  and  either  of  the  the  thirteen  null  there  f a c i l i t y  sex on  self-concept.  were  type  of  hypothesis  dependent  between  no  signi-  program was  or  not  variables.  states: be  s t a t i s t i c a l the  no  sex)  significant higher  and  analysis  here  of  the  Therefore, of  differences  the  the  program  thirteen  made  because  f o r any  and  and  and  s h a l l be  program  XI  w i l l  understanding. rejected  SES  the  there  i n Tables  status,  interaction  of  XII,  of  individual  of  measures  f a c i l i t y  significant interaction  between  one  of  and  achievement  instructional The  type  XI  Therefore,  seven There  no  type  of  f a c i l i t y .  Hypothesis  and  or  thirteen  be  either  indicated  rejected  achievement  between  interactions  of  program  Therefore,  measures As  of  between  states:  There and  significant interaction  i n Tables  f a c i l i t y .  rejected  no  type  of  interactions  of  be  and  showed  cases, to  interpret  null  thirteen  factors of  (type  school  Habits. the  f a c i l i t y ) .  However,  obtained  hypothesis  of  differences  explicating  dependent  interactions  socio-economic  significant  Work  d i f f i c u l t y the  (IQ,  school type  l e v e l  was  significant  i t f o r not  variables.  no  easy  129 CHAPTER  SUMMARY,  CONCLUSIONS,  Summary  The  AND  of Procedures  IMPLICATIONS  and  Findings  Problem  study  The  general  was  stated  1.  How  problem as  are type  performance lary,  2.  sex) of  grade  i n this  and type  to the  children  measured  i n (a)  (c)  problem  of  vocabu-  mathematics  solving,  and t o  self-concept? interactions  and type  these  are there  between  of instructional  program  measures? same  are there  outcome  between  (intelligence,  and school  factors  measures,  individual  socio-economic (type  what difference  status,  of f a c i l i t y  and  and type  program)?  purposes  reformulated  of the investigation,  into  testable.hypotheses provided  related  outcome  F i n a l l y , using  variables  f a c i l i t y  comprehension,  what  same  interactions  For  of  of f a c i l i t y  these  investigated  (d) mathematics  Additionally,  on 3.  program  of t h i r d  measures  type  was  of school  (b) reading  concepts, (e)  which  follows:  instructional  was  V  seven  were  the structure  specific  drawn.  around  central  questions from  .These  which  this  problem  which  specific questions  the experiment  was  130 organized  and  the  Design  the  Experiment  of  findings  In  this  case,  children  from  ten  d i s t r i c t s subjects two  or  i n of  more  f a c i l i t i e s )  the  1k1  165  boys,  girls)  selected elementary  i n  open  either space  program  schools  metropolitan  A l l 321  study.  years  instructional  (156  Vancouver  this  or  321  discussed.  subjects  i n  grade  s i x  school  comprised  had  been  the  taught  self-contained classrooms  classrooms  which  area  third  (open  (nonopen  f a c i l i t i e s )  could  be  classified  total  of  155  by  Tor  i n  the  an  DISC  1 i±2 V  ^  as  taught  open  or  i n an  f a c i l i t y  or  nonopen.  open a  instructional  nonopen  nonopen  instructional  nonopen  f a c i l i t y .  to  the  school  a  2X2  of  design  both  to  school  studied.  In  estimate  the  the  of  three  economic  program  f a c i l i t y , program  This  factors,  sub-groupings  A  and  i n  program  and  on the  interaction  individual s t a t u s , and  the  of  thirteen  these  1  (1972):  2  69-83.  been  an  open the  an  effects  two  open i n  f a c i l i t y  subjects resulted  and  dependent the  been  taught  researcher  allowed same  had  to  or  a  according i n  four  u t i l i z e  interaction variables  researcher  school  a  to  factors  and  intelligence,  socio-  sex.  ^ " R o s s E. T r a u b , e t D e s c r i b i n g and Q u a n t i f y i n g 1  had  d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e s of  ^- The r e a d e r i s r e f e r r e d t o Chapter I I I , p p . 79-80, 99-100 f o r the experimental questions. 1  either  f a c i l i t y ,  main  design  i n  of  a l l o w i n g the  investigate both  addition,  either  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  children,  factors  166  children  Chapter I, a complete  pp. 1li-l5 and d i s c u s s i o n of  a l . , " C l o s u r e on Openness: Open E d u c a t i o n , " I n t e r c h a n g e  3(2-3)  1 31 A l l four  measures  during  were  pre-existing  f a c i l i t y used  groups,  as  variables  program)  were  of  When f a c i l i t y , two  program  the interactions  (type  the selected  program  status,  andsex,  to analyze  and f a c i l i t y measures  between  of f a c i l i t y  the main  had on t h e four o f  self-concept.  individual status,  and type  o f  effects  difference  and sex) and the  instructional  examined.  main  variable,  favoured effect  Comprehension  Group,  i n relation  differences  main  dependent  were  t o School  factor,  found f o r  Subjects.  this  For  difference  and f o rt h e dependent  t o School Group.  related compared  effect  the school  measures, Mathematics  Mathematics Concepts,  t h e two groups were  o f the thirteen  variable  t h e Open F a c i l i t y  significant  using  differences  i n relation  F a c i l i t y  self-concept  compared  effect  dependent  t h e Nonopen  When  self-concept  to adjust f o r  socio-economic  socio-economic  and self-concept  main  program,  was u s e d  t h e two groups were  difference  two  that  significant  variable,  ficant  I n order  of  test,  Findings  dependent  favoured  measures  among  intelligence,  regression  o f the thirteen  Concepts the  differences  (intelligence,  factors  Summary  1 97l+.  o f achievement and the nine  Additionally,  school  an intelligence  covariates.  the interaction  measures  administered  May, a n d J u n e ,  Stepwise and  were  o f achievement, and nine  A p r i l ,  possible and  subjects  and Mathematics Concepts.  No  using  this  other  t o f a c i l i t y  differences  variable  Subjects,  signi-  were  the school were  measures, I n both  found. factor,  found f o r Reading cases,  this  1 32 difference  favoured  significant  main  the Nonopen  effect  Program Group,  differences related  No  other  to program  were  found. S t a t i s t i c a l l y type of  of program  the thirteen  Concepts, These 1.  type  dependent  significant  of  o f Nonopen  Convergent Mental effects  Nonopen  variables,  found  that  marked  Nonopen  est  scores  Nonopen this  F a c i l i t y  Group  were  with  than  F a c i l i t y  measure,  between  of  three  and  Virtues.  as  follows:  f o r the  Nonopen  combined  Program.  higher  Nonopen  effects  f a c i l i t i e s  this  Virtue  effects  found  on  with  F a c i l i t y .  the differential  Program/Open  Social  highest  scores  Open  measures  summarized  Program  found  f o r the  F a c i l i t y  In addition, of program  i n open Group  and  i t was  were  more  f a c i l i t i e s ,  with  obtaining the  the Nonopen  obtaining the  com-  lowest  high-  Program/ scores  on  measure.  Social  open  with  and  were  F a c i l i t y A b i l i t y  i n nonopen  the  are  and  were  namely, Mathematics  A b i l i t y ,  scores  o f Open  Program  interactions f a c i l i t y  interactions  Mathematics Concept  bined  3.  and/or  Convergent Mental  effects 2.  significant  of  Open  Program that  scores  were  Program  with  Open  with  marked  i n nonopen  with  the Nonopen  highest  scores  on  Nonopen  F a c i l i t y  Nonopen  Group  f o r the  f a c i l i t i e s  F a c i l i t y  and  of program  than  F a c i l i t y  measure,  combined  In addition,  effects  Program/Open this  higher  F a c i l i t y .  the differential  more  also  and  i n open Group  i t was were  again  f a c i l i t i e s ,  obtaining  the Nonopen  obtaining the lowest  Non-  the  Program/  scores  on  this  133 measure. Interactions socio-economic f a c i l i t y  between  status,  and/or  type  individual  and  of  sex)  and  difference variables  school  program),were  variables  non-  (IQ,  (type  of  significant.  Conclusions  1.  Type  of  school  classrooms), to  most  of  f a c i l i t y  when  the  considered  no  to  type  of  thirteen  to  have  of  school  been  Concepts Test  and  results  of  the  to  however,  self-concept showed  that  more  classrooms  of  than  on  on  school  Solving,  to  to  self-concepts  significantly  Subjects.  open i n  space relation  i n self-conbetter  c h i l d r e n taught  Type  Mathematics  School i n  and  appeared  f a c i l i t y .  related  eleven  Vocabulary,  measures  c h i l d r e n taught  achieved  exsigni-  f a c i l i t y  c h i l d r e n taught  while  unrelated  outcomes  Problem  i n relation  favourable  Concepts  of  be  statistically  self-concept type  to  Scores  Mathematics  was,  Subjects,  Mathematics  measures.  nine  unrelated  had  School  tained  outcome  f a c i l i t y  classrooms to  There  Comprehension, eight  seems  were  differences attributed  on  alone,  self-contained  study.  ficant  tests  or  noncognitive  i n  Reading  space  c o g n i t i v e and  amined  the  this  (open  i n  i n  open  space  classrooms. 2.  Similarly^  type  or  programs),  nonopen  unrelated outcomes  to  of  instructional when  most  of  the  examined  i n  this  program  considered  alone,  c o g n i t i v e and study.  (open  There  programs  seems  noncognitive were  no  to  be  13k s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  of  eleven  program  Scores tests been  on on  a l ln i n e  was,  that  programs hension open It  type  however,  of  related  and  outcome  Problem  Type  Concepts  than  to  have school  Comprehension  or  better  and  of  cases, test  nonopen  type  measures.  appeared  program.  In both  to  Solving,  to Reading  taught by  Mathematics  attributed  measures  school  Concepts.  children  results  traditional  i n Reading children  Compre-  taught  by  programs. be  noted  were  found  were  compared two  a  program  one  examines becomes  effects  using  the  were  i n the  Nonopen  two  significant  section  to  groups  using  on  and  when  f a c i l i t y  Concepts.  (Figure  compared  effects  factor,  of  the  Mathematics  i n relation  school  interaction  i t was  two  f a c i l i t y ,  the  interaction  Implications,  only  using  main  the  f o r Mathematics  caused  groups  Therefore,  Educational  found  when  factor,  ordinal  that  that  the  school  ordinal  evident  Concepts  compared  also  this  when  discussed  were  was  Group  factors.  although significant  the  significant  and  F a c i l i t y  that  f o r Mathematics  groups  program,  i t  thirteen  achieved significantly  should  the  the  self-concept  to  Mathematics  showed  of  Vocabulary, Mathematics  unrelated  program and  on  differences  2,  When 126),  p.  Program/Nonopen  the  main two  Discussion Concepts  w i l l  school  and be  this  significant  inter-,  any  significant  relation-  action. There ship and  appears between  sex,  and  not  to have  differences type  of  been i n IQ,  program  or  socio-economic type  of  status,  f a c i l i t y .  In  135 other  words,  status type  or  of  sex  did  f a c i l i t y  Children in  children  as  self-contained of  type  program  of  ematics open  showed  A  when  i n  by  type  of  program  of  another. Concepts  traditional  f a c i l i t y  children  taught  or  when or  and  scored  by  nonopen between  measures highest  nonopen  taught  of  i n  programs  Math-  i n  non-  classrooms. to  between  Convergent  i n one  socio-economic  s i g n i f i c a n t interaction  type that  d i f f i c u l t  interaction  did  classrooms  self-contained  Although  well  IQ's,  i n Mathematics  and  Concepts  as  they  teaching.  mathematics  on  about  did better  methods  of d i f f e r i n g  interpret, there  type  Mental  of  f a c i l i t y  A b i l i t y  scores  was  and and  a s i g n i f i c a n t  type  of  program  Social  Virtue  Mental  A b i l i t y ,  Open  better  scores  scores. a. .F o r  the  Programs  variable,  produced  Traditional  scores b.  than  whereas scores  f o r the  than  Open  given  than  significantly  open  space  Virtues.  significantly  better  scores  Programs Programs  self-contained  produced given  space  Open  than  Nonopen  classrooms,  significantly  open  better  classrooms.  Social  given  Nonopen  classrooms,  variable,  Programs  Nonopen  self-contained  produced  Programs  produced  Traditional  given  Programs  Open  Likewise,  Programs  significantly  Programs  whereas, Nonopen  Convergent  better  classrooms.  136 Discussion  N  The between  purpose  of  and  this  Educational  study  Instructional Style  (open  Architectural  Style  cognitive  a f f e c t i v e outcomes  The  and  findings  of  this  thirteen  dependent  could  be  found  those  selected  ences  were  school which be  support  no  i n  Chapter  I I .  studies  of  relation  the  the  31  to  to To  with  When  the  are  of  space the  favour  the  extent  generalizable,  of  the  to  education  open  the  open  concerned with 7  the  neither  education  i n results group,  studies  group.  findings  educational  to  the  the  While  support  open  from  r e l a t i o n s h i p found  comparative  the  favour  reversed.  to  tended  students  studies  to  tend  seven  traditional),  the  for  research  the  of  which  several  American  results  tended  d i f f e r -  appeared  findings  to  i s  For  important  f a c i l i t y  tended  nonopen to  more  the  differences  significant  These  between  the  of  f a c i l i t y .  studies  studies  five  a f f e c t i v e outcomes  and  and  selected  children.  a f f e c t i v e outcomes  examined,  three  or  the  results  (open  a f f e c t i v e outcomes  open  the  space  be  found,  the  grade  a l l but  which  variable.  While  and  significant  selected  Canadian  programs  for  program  to  were  relationship  programs),  third  no  for  appeared  differences  open  outcomes  results  tended  be  the  to  the  f a c i l i t i e s ) ,  that  outcomes  the  nonopen  studied,  those  explore  321  of  related  concerned  school  students.  cognitive  of  of  and  showed  school  of  types  space  important  to  nonopen  differences  significant  results  for  results  education  two  and  the  reviewed  show  were  program  significant more  study  cognitive  found,  and  variables  that  variable,  the  (open  was  Implications  of  this  implications  study may  may be  137 inferred: 1.  Higher when  achievement  reading  i s taught  self-contained Higher  achievement  self-contained On  the other  School in  o r open  i s taught  may  conventional style space  i n Mathematics by  a  be  gained  i n  either  classrooms.  Concepts  may  be  gained  conventional style  i n  self-concept i n relation  to  1  hand,  space  a  Comprehension  classrooms. ^  Subjects  open  by  classrooms  when m a t h e m a t i c s  3.  i n Reading  better  may  be  enhanced  classrooms  when  children  rather than  i n  are  taught  self-contained  classrooms. k.  I n addition, Social by  better  Virtues  an open  may  style  self-contained by  a  The  space reason  unexplainable only  t h e two  high  level)  degree  instructional self-concept.  enhanced  rather than  style  when  A b i l i t y  children  a traditional  and when  rather than  f o r the disordinal  extremes  o f program  Mental  and are  style  children an open  are  style  better taught given taught given  classrooms.  at this  were  be  classrooms,  traditional  open  Convergent  time.  o f program  u t i l i z e d  This  may,  t o promote  view  be  due  openness  i n this  openness  program  I t may  interaction  study,  i n fact, growth  i s supported,  appears  to the fact (a low level  and that be  a  i n part,  two by  that and  a  medium  the best  i n these  t o be  type areas  the  of of  results  ^ N o a t t e m p t s w e r e made t o a n a l y s e w h i c h specific concepts o r s k i l l s were i n v o l v e d i n p r o d u c i n g t h i s significant difference.  138 of  a  study  they the  investigated curiosity  types and  of school  moderate  be  a  made  o f program  studies  to include  medium,  openness  may  curiosity.  a l l three  education  i n three high,  The a n a l y s i s  distribution,  involving  levels  medium, of the  programs, o f program  that  optimum  Therefore,  open  different  suggesting  be t h e  and .  i ti s suggested an attempt  should  openness  high.  -  and low.  Suggestions  Based drawn,  open  enrolled  openness).  f o rfostering  i n future  1973,^^" i n w h i c h  (programs obtaining  curvilinear  level  environment that  programs  i n  between  of students  o f program  indicated  and Weiss  the relationships  behaviour  low scores  data a  conducted by Corlis  f o rF u r t h e r  on t h e f i n d i n g s  the following  Research  of this  study,  recommendations  and the conclusions  a r e made  f o r further  research: 1.  Studies  need  of  t o s i x years  four  nonopen  programs,  f a c i l i t i e s , with  a  since  specific  sufficient  2.  t o be  time  conducted which o f open  and open two years  type  and a f f e c t i v e  Carefully  designed  conducted  i n which children  assigned  t o  f a c i l i t i e s  as compared  t o  i n a  specific may  type  n o t have  of  nonopen  f a c i l i t y  been  differences i n  outcomes.  longitudinal  t o different  effects  as compared  significant  cognitive  the  programs  o f program  t o reveal  consider  types  who  studies have  need  been  t o be  randomly  of instructional  programs  ^"Garol C o r l i s and Joel Weiss. C u r i o s i t y and Openness: E m p i r i c a l T e s t i n g o f a B a s i c A s s u m p t i o n ( B e t h e s d a . Md.: E R I C D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , E D 085 0 8 6 , 1 9 7 3 ) . 1  and/or 3.  The  f a c i l i t i e s  researcher scored  omitting  those  a l l  range  three  high  -  medium  range  k.  levels  Since  two  difference Divergent further  used  in  should  done  variable  i s  significantly  type  measures  of  of  open  to  include case  of  be  the  of  or  open  rooms  vary  as  the  much  as  individual and  the and  of  between  to  the  more  such  both  sexes.  study. carefully  program  experclass-  cognitive  the  since  or  teaching  be  measures,  _  greater  low  present  classrooms  and  a  conducting  school  space  not  program,  examined  of  medium,  explore  elementary made  studies,  Comprehension  teachers  amount  related  affective  from  to of  the  significance,  Researchers  classrooms  Investigations should  can  and  should  rooms  the  thus  i n  or  either  where  V,  produce  involving  conducted  a s c e r t a i n i f the space  -.'low,  approached  be  i n the  open  size  -  (with Reading  f a c i l i t y .  i n  between  sex  sex  attempt  scored  a s c e r t a i n whether  Ability),  ience  affective  openness  interactions of  DISC  future  openness.  Mental  to  In  program  should  order  teachers  openness.  to  the  than  variable  teacher  on  outcomes  of  The  low  years.  classrooms  affective  the  not  from  could  studies  was  whose  several  openness  of  type  or  f o r  program  sex  and  high  program  between  This  6.  of  relationship  studies  5.  of  of  children  program  be  and  followed  children  levels  cognitive high  either  of  should  be  compared  teachers  middle  can  and  children.  relationships and  cognitive  size  of  open  two  to  28  space  stations  and  class(each  station  being  equal  room).  I t may  be  i n  size  that  to  there  one  self-contained class-  i s an  optimum  size  f o r  such  classrooms. 7.  The  findings  f a c i l i t i e s to  a  i t  might  higher be  8.  School be  useful  to  order  and  to  included i n future  teaching, multiple  Some  the age  than  f a c i l i t i e s . areas  test  teacher  training,  and  of  grouping.  in-service  of  outcomes  Therefore,  of  affective  assure  which use  open  instruments  i n open  program  variables  that  affective  studies regarding  such  amount  of  t h a t may  outcomes  other  show  other  this,  standardized  variables  of  nonopen  do  to  aspects  examine  f o r measuring  amount  tended  certain than  f a c i l i t i e s . are  study  degree  In  designed  v a l i d i t y  this  promoted  outcomes. be  of  need  to  greater  space  classrooms.  f a c i l i t y  should  open  nonopen  could  and be  teacher  training  examined aides  received,  forand  BIBLIOGRAPHY  1k2 A. Allen,  I a n . Open P l a n - A Stanford University,  BOOKS  Canadian 1972.  Investigation.  A n d e r s o n , R o b e r t H. "Organizing Groups f o r Individualizing Instruction, i n S i x t y of the National Society f o r the Study T] C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s Archambault, Reginald, New Y o r k : R a n d o m  ed.  A v e r c h , H a r v e y A., C a r r o l l , Kiesling, Herbert J . , Schooling? A C r i t i c a l Findings. California: Barth,  Dewey  Housed  Instruction." f i r s t Yearbook of Education, p t . s, 1962.  on Education  1966.  Appraisals.  S t e p h e n J . , D o n a l d s o n , T h e o d o r e , S., and P i n c u s , John. How E f f e c t i v e I s Review and Synthesis o f Research Rand C o r p o r a t i o n , 1972.  R o l a n d S. Open E d u c a t i o n and t h e A m e r i c a n York: Schocken Books, 1972.  B l a c k i e , John. Inside Books, 1971.  California:  the Primary  School.  New  School.  York:  New  Schocken  B l i s h e n , B e r n a r d R . , J o n e s , F r a n k E . , N a e g e l e , K a s p e r D., a n d Porter, John, eds. Canadian Society Sociological Pers p e c t i v e s . Toronto: M a c M i l l a n o f Canada, 1971. B o n j e a n , C h a r l e s M., H i l l , R i c h a r d J . , a n d M c L e m o r e , S . D a l e , eds. S o c i o l o g i c a l Measurement An I n v e n t o r y o f S c a l e s and I n d i c e s . S a n F r a n c i s c o : C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g Company,  1967.  B o t t e n b e r g , R. A . , a n d W a r d , J . H. Applied Multiple Linear R e g r e s s i o n . L a c k l a n d A i r F o r c e B a s e , T e x a s : U.S. Department o f Commerce, O f f i c e o f T e c h n i c a l S e r v i c e s ,  1968.  Brubaker, C h a r l e s W i l l i a m , Chasholm, Robert L., and Conner, F o r e s t E. Open Space S c h o o l s , R e p o r t o f t h e A.A.S.A. on Open Space S c h o o l s . W a s h i n g t o n : A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of School Administrators, 1971. B u s s i s , A n n e M., a n d C h i t t e n d e n , E d w a r d A . A n a l y s i s o f an A p p r o a c h t o O p e n E d u c a t i o n . P r i n c e t o n , New J e r s e y : Educational Testing Service, 1970. Canadian Educational Association. a CEA S t u d y . T o r o n t o : B r y a n t Clegg,  Open-Area Schools-Report Press Limited, 1973.  of  Alec. Revolution i n the B r i t i s h Primary Schools. Arlington, Virginia: National Association of Elementary Principals, 1971.  •  143  C o l e m a n , J . S., C a m p b e l l , E. Q., H o b s o n , C. I . , M c P a r t l a n d , J . , Mood, A. M., W e i n f e l d , P. D., and Y o r k , R. L. Equality o f E d u c a t i o n a l O p p o r t u n i t y . W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: U.S. Dept. o f H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n , and W e l f a r e , O f f i c e o f E d u c a t i o n , U.S. G o v t . P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1 9 6 6 . C o o p e r s m i t h , S t a n l e y . The A n t e c e d e n t s o f S e l f - E s t e e m . S a n F r a n c i s c o : W. H. F r e e m a n and Company, 1 9 6 7 . C r e m i n , L a w r e n c e A. The T r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f t h e S c h o o l . New Y o r k : V i n t a g e B o o k s , 1961 . Dewey, E v e l y n . The D a l t o n L a b o r a t o r y P l a n . L o n d o n , T o r o n t o : J . M. D e n t a n d S o n s L t d . , 1 9 2 2 . D o l l , R o n a l d C., I n d i v i d u a l i z i n g I n s t r u c t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.: A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S u p e r v i s i o n and C u r r i c u l u m D e v e l o p ment, 1964. D r a p e r , N. R., a n d S m i t h , H. A p p l i e d R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s . Y o r k : John W i l e y and Sons, 1966.  New  Educational F a c i l i t i e s Laboratories. Transformation of the S c h o o l h o u s e . New Y o r k : E d u c a t i o n a l F a c i l i t i e s L a b o r a t o r i e s , 1969. F e l k e r , D o n a l d W. B u i l d i n g P o s i t i v e S e l f - C o n c e p t s . Minneapol i s , M i n n e s o t a : B u r g e s s P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1974 F l e x n e r , A b r a h a m , a n d B a c k m a n , F r a n k P. The G a r y S c h o o l s . New Y o r k : G e n e r a l E d u c a t i o n B o a r d , 1 9 1 8 . F r a z i e r , A l e x a n d e r . Open S c h o o l s f o r " C h i l d r e n . W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.: A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S u p e r v i s i o n and C u r r i c u l u m D e v e l o p ment, 1972. G a r d n e r , D. E. M. L o n g Term R e s u l t s o f I n f a n t S c h o o l M e t h o d s . L o n d o n : M e t h u e n a n d Company, 1 9 5 0 . G a r d n e r , D. E. M. E x p e r i m e n t and T r a d i t i o n i n P r i m a r y S c h o o l s . L o n d o n : M e t h u e n a n d Company, 1 9 6 6 . G o o d l a d , J o h n I . , a n d K l e i n , F r a n c e s M. a n d A s s o c i a t e s . Behind t h e C l a s s r o o m D o o r . W o r t h i n g t o n , O h i o : C h a r l e s A. J o n e s , 1970. G r i f f i n , C. W. S y s t e m s A n A p p r o a c h t o S c h o o l . New E d u c a t i o n a l F a c i l i t i e s L a b o r a t o r i e s , 1971*  York:  G r o s s , R o n a l d , and Murphy, J u d i t h . E d u c a t i o n a l Change a n d A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n s e q u e n c e s . New Y o r k : E d u c a t i o n a l F a c i l i t i e s L a b o r a t o r i e s , 1968.  1kk Hearn,  D. D w a i n , B u r d i n , J o e l , a n d K a t z , L i l i a n , e d s . Current Research and P e r s p e c t i v e s i n Open E d u c a t i o n . Washington: American A s s o c i a t i o n of Elementary - Kindergarten Nursery Educators, 1972.  K e r l i n g e r , F r e d N., a n d P e d h a z u r , i n Behavioral Research. New Winston, 1973.  Elzar York:  J . Multiple Regression H o l t , Rinehart and  Lavin,  D a v i d E. The P r e d i c t i o n o f Academic York: R u s s e l l Sage F o u n d a t i o n , 1965.  Meyer,  A d o l p h E. John The A v o n P r e s s ,  Myers,  D o n a l d A., a n d M y e r s , L i l l i a n , e d s . Open E d u c a t i o n Reexamined. Massachusetts, Toronto, London: Lexington B o o k s , D. C. H e a t h a n d C o m p a n y , 1973.  Dewey 1931.  and Modern  Performance.  Education.  New  New  York:  National School Public Relations Association. Informal Education: 'Open C l a s s r o o m ' Provokes Change, Controversy. Arlington, Va.: N a t i o n a l Public Relations A s s o c i a t i o n ,  1972.  Ontario Institute f o r Studies i n Education. D i r e c t o r y Open Plan Schools i n Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Institute f o r Studies i n Education, 1971. Parkhurst, Bell P e r r o n e , V. Ind.:  Helen. E d u c a t i o n on t h e D a l t o n and Sons, L t d . , 1923. Open E d u c a t i o n : P h i D e l t a Kappan  Plan.  London:  Promise and Problems. Education Foundation,  G.  Bloomington 1972.  Plowden, Lady B r i d g e t , et a l . C h i l d r e n and T h e i r Primary Schools: A Report o f the C e n t r a l Advisory Council f o r Education, V o l . I and I I . London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1967. Ragan,  W i l l i a m B . , a n d S h e p h e r d , G e n e D. Modern Elementary C u r r i c u l u m . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t a n d W i n s t o n , 1971.  Rasmussen, Margaret, ed. Individualizing Association f o r Childhood Education R a t h b o n e , C h a r l e s H., r o o m . New Y o r k : Reiss,  Education. Washington: International, 196k.  ed. Open E d u c a t i o n : The Citation Press, 1971.  Albert J . Occupations and S o c i a l Collier-MacMillan Limited, 1961.  Informal  Status.  R o g e r s , V i n c e n t R. Teaching i n the B r i t i s h London: M a c M i l l a n Company, 1970.  New  Primary  Class-  York:  School.  145 School  Planning Laboratory. Open-Space Schools Project B u l l e t i n No. 1 . Palo Alto, California: Stanford University, 1970.  Silberman, Charles. House, 1971.  Crisis  S n e d e c o r , G e o r g e ¥., M e t h o d s . Ames,  a n d C o c h r a n , W i l l i a m G. S t a t i s t i c a l Iowa: Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967.  S t e p h e n s , J . M. The Process Examination. New York: Stephens, New  L i l l i a n S. York: Holt,  i n  the  Classroom.  New  York:  Random  of Schooling. A Psychological H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1966.  The T e a c h e r ' s G u i d e t o R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n ,  Open 1974.  Education.  Walberg, Herbert J . , and C h r i s t i e , Susan. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Open E d u c a t i o n : Toward an O p e r a t i o n a l D e f i n i t i o n . Newton, Mass.: E d u c a t i o n a l Development Center, 1971. Wert,  J a m e s E., N e i d t , C h a r l e s 0., and Ahmann, J . Stanley. S t a t i s t i c a l M e t h o d s i n E d u c a t i o n a l and Psychological R e s e a r c h . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, I n c . , 1954*  White,  Sister Virginia. The Open A r e a S c h o o l : Achievement or Beginning? V a n c o u v e r , B . C.: Education Extension Centre f o r C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B . C., 1972.  B.  PERIODICALS  Allen,  D. I . " S t u d e n t P e r f o r m a n c e , A t t i t u d e and S e l f - E s t e e m Open A r e a and S e l f - C o n t a i n e d C l a s s r o o m s . " The Alberta - - - J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h XX(1 ) ( M a r c h 1 9 7 4 ) :  A r l i n ,  Marshall. Elementary  "Open E d u c a t i o n and S c h o o l J o u r n a l 76(4)  Arlin,  Marshall. "The I n t e r a c t i o n of Locus of room S t r u c t u r e , and P u p i l S a t i s f a c t i o n . " the Schools 12(3) ( J u l y 1975): 279-286.  i n  1-7.  Pupils' Attitudes." ( J a n u a r y 1976): 220-228. Control, ClassPsychology i n  A r m s t r o n g , D a v i d G. "Open S p a c e v s . Self-Contained." Educational Leadership 32(4) ( J a n u a r y 1975): 291-295. B e l l ,  Anne E., and S w i t z e r , F r e d . "Factors Related to Preschool P r e d i c t i o n of Academic Achievement: Beginning Reading i n Open-Area vs T r a d i t i o n a l Classroom Systems." Manitoba Journal of Education VIII(2) ( J u n e 1973): 21-27.  1k6 B r u n e t t i , P r a n k A . , C o h e n , E l i z a b e t h G . , M e y e r , J o h n W., a n d M o l n a r , S h e i l a , R. P . " S t u d i e s o f Team T e a c h i n g i n t h e Open-Space S c h o o l . " I n t e r c h a n g e 3(2-3) (1972): 85- 101. Cohen,  J . "Multiple Regression as a General Data-Analytic S y s t e m . " P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n 70(6) (1968): k26-kk3.  D a r l i n g t o n , R i c h a r d B. "Multiple Regression i n Psychological Research and P r a c t i c e . " Psychological B u l l e t i n 69(3)  (1968):  161-182.  DeCarlo, Giancarlo. "Why/How t o B u i l d S c h o o l B u i l d i n g s . " H a r v a r d E d u c a t i o n a l R e v i e w 3 9 ( k ) ( F a l l 1969): 12-3k. Featherstone, Joseph. "The P r i m a r y S c h o o l R e v o l u t i o n i n B r i t a i n . " A P i t m a n / N e w R e p u b l i c R e p r i n t (New Y o r k : P i t m a n P u b l . C o r p . ) (1968). Gibbons,  M.  1(2)  "What  (1970):  I s Individualized  Instruction?"  Interchange  28-52.  Jennings, Earl. "Fixed E f f e c t s Analysis o f Variance by Regression Analysis." Multivariate Behavioral Research 2 ( J a n u a r y 1967): 95-107. Lubin,  Ardie. "The I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S i g n i f i c a n t Interaction." E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement XXI(k) (1961):  807-817. M a c B e t h , E d w i n W. "When t h e W a l l s S c h o o l Management XV ( A u g u s t  Come T u m b l i n g  1971):  8-11.  Down."  M a r a s c u i l o , L e o n a r d A . , a n d L e v i n , J o e l R. "Appropriate Post Hoc C o m p a r i s o n s f o rI n t e r a c t i o n a n d N e s t e d H y p o t h e s e s i n A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e D e s i g n s : The E l i m i n a t i o n o f Type IV Error." American Educational Research Journal 7(3)  (May 1970): 379-k2k  M a r t i n , L y n S, a n d P a v a n , B a r b a r a N . "Current Research on Open Space, N o n g r a d i n g , V e r t i c a l G r o u p i n g , a n d Team T e a c h i n g . " P h i D e l t a K a p p a n ( J a n u a r y 1976): 310-31k. M a r s h a l l , H e r m i n e H. " C r i t e r i a f o ra n Open C l a s s r o o m . " C h i l d r e n X X V I I ( 1 ) ( O c t o b e r 1972): 13-19. Mood,  Young  A l e x a n d e r M. "Partitioning Variance i nMultiple Regression Analyses as a Tool f o r Developing Learning Models." A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l 8(2) ( M a r c h 1971):  191-202.  Musemeche, R i c h a r d A., a n d Adams, Sam. "Open Space S c h o o l s a n d t h e N o n - C o g n i t i v e Domain." CEFP J o u r n a l X I I ( 5 ) (Sept./  O c t . 197k): k - 6 .  147 Overall, of  J . , a n d S p i e g a l , D. Experimental Data."  (1969):  311-322.  "Concerning Least Squares A n a l y s i s Psychological B u l l e t i n 72(5)  P u r k e y , W i l l i a m W., Graves, W i l l i a m , and Z e l l n e r , Mary. "SelfPerceptions of Pupils i n an Experimental Elementary S c h o o l . " The E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l J o u r n a l LXXI (December  1970): 166-171 . Reiss,  Steven, and Open  and Dyhdalo, Nester. Space Environments." (1975/76) ( i n p r e s s ) .  "Persistence, Achievement, Educational Psychology  R i e g l e , J a c k D. " O p e n - C o n c e p t E d u c a t i o n : A Human E n t e r p r i s e . " N A S S P B u l l e t i n 57(369) ( J a n u a r y 1 9 7 3 ) : 10-1k. Ruedi,  Jane, and West, C h a r l e s . Pupil Self-Concept i n an "Open" S c h o o l and i n a " T r a d i t i o n a l " S c h o o l . Bethesda. M d . : E R I C D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , E D * 0 6 6 217, 1973. A l s o i n P s y c h o l o g y i n t h e S c h o o l s 10 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 7 3 ) :  k8-53. S c h n e e , R o n a l d G., a n d P a r k , J o e . "The Open S c h o o l Improves Elementary Reading Scores i n Oklahoma C i t y . " P h i D e l t a K a p p a n L V I ( 5 ) ( J a n u a r y 1975): 366-367. Traub,  R o s s E . , W e i s s , J o e l , F i s h e r , C. W., and M u s e l l a , Don. " C l o s u r e on Openness: D e s c r i b i n g and Q u a n t i f y i n g Open E d u c a t i o n . " I n t e r c h a n g e 3(2-3) (1972): 6 9 - 8 3 .  Walberg, Herbert J . "Generalized Regression Models i n Educat i o n a l Research." American Educational Research Journal 8(1) ( J a n u a r y 1 971 ): 71-91. Walberg, H e r b e r t J . , and Thomas, Susan C h r i s t i e . "Open E d u c a t i o n : An O p e r a t i o n a l D e f i n i t i o n and V a l i d a t i o n i n Great B r i t a i n and the United S t a t e s . " American Educat i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l 3k(2) ( S p r i n g 1972): 197-207. W e i n i n g e r , 0. " T h e B r i t i s h P a c e m a k e r s - " t r a n s p l a n t , t r a n s ref o r m a t i o n o r "-transition?" The E d u c a t i o n a l C o u r i e r k3(k) ( F e b r u a r y 1973): 8-12. W i l s o n , F . S., the Open  Research  L a n g e v i n , R., a n d S t u c k e y , T . "Are Pupils i n Plan School Different?" Journal of Educational  66(3)  (1972):  C.  115-118.  UNPUBLISHED  MATERIALS  Anifant, David Charles. "Risk-Taking Behavior i n Children E x p e r i e n c i n g Open Space and T r a d i t i o n a l Environments." P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d , 1972.  1 Beckley, Larry Lee. "Comparative Study o f Elementary School S t u d e n t A t t i t u d e s toward S c h o o l and S e l f i n Open Concept a n d S e l f - C o n t a i n e d E n v i r o n m e n t s . " P h . D. dissertation, Purdue U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. Black,  Strathern Murray. "Academic Achievement and S e l f Concept o f F o u r t h Grade P u p i l s i n Open A r e a and T r a d i t i o n a l L e a r n i n g E n v i r o n m e n t s . " P h . D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1974.  Broward County School Board. Evaluation of Innovative Schools S t u d e n t A c h i e v e m e n t . 1970-71. B e t h e s d a , M d . : ERIC D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , E D 069 7i+0, E D 069 741 >  1972.  Brown,  Peggy O l i v i a Jones. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f S e l f - E Anxiety, and B e h a v i o r o f B l a c k and Non-Black a c h i e v i n g E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l S t u d e n t s i n Open S t r a t e f i e d C l a s s r o o m s . " E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , University, 1973.  steem, Underand Columbia  Burnham, B r i a n . "Reading and Mathematics Achievement o f Grade 1 P u p i l s i n Open P l a n and A r c h i t e c t u r a l l y C o n v e n t i o n a l Schools." Ontario, York County Board o f Education, 1971. (Mimeographed.) Burnham, B r i a n . "Reading, S p e l l i n g , and Mathematics Achievement o f Grade 2 P u p i l s i n Open P l a n and A r c h i t e c t u r a l l y Conventional Schools." Ontario, York County Board o f E d u c a t i o n , 1971. (Mimeographed.) Burnham, B r i a n . "Reading and Mathematics Achievement o f Grade 3 P u p i l s i n Open P l a n and A r c h i t e c t u r a l l y C o n v e n t i o n a l Schools." Ontario, York County Board o f Education, 1973. (Mimeographed.) C a r b o n a r i , J o s e p h P. "Report o f an Evaluation Study o f an Open-Concept School." U n i v e r s i t y o f Houston, Bureau o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research and S e r v i c e s , Report and F a c t Sheet 8(5) M a r c h 1971. Chandrashhar, Joshi. "A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y o f t h e S o c i a l Emotional Adjustment o f Students i n S e l e c t e d Open-Space a n d S e l f - C o n t a i n e d C l a s s r o o m S c h o o l s . " P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Montana, 1973. Cochran, David Whitehouse. "An A s s e s s m e n t R e g u l a r a n d O p e n C l a s s r o o m s . " E d . D. Rutgers University, 1974. Cooke,  Geoffrey. Openrooms." A p r i l 1973.  of the Process dissertation,  of  "Problems o f Teacher-Student Organization i n York County, York county Board o f Education, (Mimeographed.)  Uj.9 C o r l i s , C a r o l , and Weiss, J o e l . C u r i o s i t y and Openness; Empirical Testing of a Basic Assumption. Bethesda, Md.: E R I C D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , E D o85 086, 1973. Crandall, Audrey Hackett. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f R e a d i n g Attitude and Reading Achievement among F i r s t G r a d e C h i l d r e n i n . Open Concept and More F o r m a l C l a s s e s . " Ph. D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1973. Crumbaugh, Thomas. "The D e v e l o p m e n t o f M o d e l s t o A i d T e a c h e r s and A d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n Implementing, and Maintaining Programs i n Open E d u c a t i o n i n E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l s . " Ed. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , M o n t a n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. , Day,  Hy I . " C u r i o s i t y and C r e a t i v i t y i n Grade 5 P u p i l s i n Open P l a n and Other S c h o o l s . " A u r o r a , O n t a r i o , Research D i v i s i o n o f P l a n n i n g and Development, York County Board o f E d u c a t i o n , M a r c h 1973. (Mimeographed.)  D i l l i n g , H. J . , a n d T r a n , C h a u T h i . "A C o m p a r i s o n o f T e a c h e r P u p i l V e r b a l I n t e r a c t i o n i n Open-Plan and C l o s e d C l a s s rooms." Research Report i s s u e d by the Research Departm e n t , S c a r b o r o u g h B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , J u n e 15, 1973. Dobson, Lee. "Performance of P u p i l s : I n f o r m a l vs Formal C l a s s e s . " Research Report prepared by Vancouver School B o a r d , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , C a n a d a , 1974. (Mimeographed.) Dobson, Lee. "Studies of by Vancouver S c h o o l (Mimeographed.) E l l i s ,  Open-Areas." Research Report prepared Board, B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada, 1975.  E . N. "A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y o f t h e P e r f o r m a n c e i n G r a d e 8 of a Secondary School of Vancouver of Students from Different Elementary Feeder Schools." Research Report prepared by Vancouver School Board, B r i t i s h Columbia, C a n a d a , 1971. (Mimeographed.)  F i s h e r , C h a r l e s W. "Educational Environments i n Elementary S c h o o l s D i f f e r i n g i n P r o g r a m , ; " P h . D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1973. G l i n s k y , Mark Warren. " E f f e c t s o f C l a s s r o o m Openness on Fourth Graders' S e l f Concept, School A t t i t u d e * ObservingI n f e r r i n g and Q u e s t i o n A s k i n g B e h a v i o r s . " Ph. D. dissertation, Syracuse University, 1973. G o r d o n , D o r o t h y Mae. "A S t u d y o f D i f Open-Space S c h o o l s and S c h o o l s Anne A r u n d e l County, M a r y l a n d , Selected Characteristics of Six P r o g r a m s . " P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,  1972.  ferences Ex of Traditio Based Upon t h Grade S o University  i s t i n g i n the nal Design of a Survey of cial Studies of Maryland,  150 G r a p k o , M i c h a e l P. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f O p e n S p a c e a n d Traditional Classroom Structures According to Independence Measures i n Children, Teachers' Awareness of Children's Persona l i t y V a r i a b l e s , and C h i l d r e n ' s Academic P r o g r e s s . " Grey C o u n t y , O n t a r i o , 1973. (Mimeographed.) Halton  County Board of Education, " E v a l u a t i o n Committee of the Innovations C o u n c i l . " O a k v i l l e , Ontario, Halton C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , J u n e 1969. (Mimeographed.)  Heimgartner, Norman Concept: Open P h . D. d i s s e r t 1972. Also ava H i l l ,  Louis. "A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y o f SelfSpace Versus S e l f - C o n t a i n e d Classrooms." ation, University of Northern Colorado, i l a b l e i n a n E R I C R e p r o d u c t i o n , E D 069 389.  J e r r y Glynn Matthews. "A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y o f A c a d e m i c Achievement of Intermediate Level Students i n an Open C o n c e p t S c h o o l and a C o n v e n t i o n a l S c h o o l . " Ed. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , McNeese S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1973.  Hudson, Charles Eugene. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f S o c i a l a n d Personal Adjustment of Elementary S t u d e n t s A t t e n d i n g an Open S p a c e S c h o o l and E l e m e n t a r y Students Attending a Traditional S c h o o l . " P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , S a i n t L o u i s University,  1973.  J o h n s o n , C. E . , R o g e r s , B . G., a n d S . c h a f e r , N. P. "Evaluation Reports of the Model Elementary S c h o o l and t h e M o d e l Middle School of Howard County Maryland 1970-71." Maryland, Howard County Board of E d u c a t i o n , 1971. (Mimeographed.) J o h n s o n , C. E . , R o g e r s , B . G., a n d S c h a f e r , N. P. "A Comparat i v e Study of the C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Howard County Model Open-Space S c h o o l s . " Maryland, Howard County Board o f E d u c a t i o n , O c t o b e r 1972. (Mimeographed.) J o i n e r , L e e M. S t . P a u l Open S c h o o l : The St. Paul Public S c h o o l s - I n d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l D i s t r i c t No. 625, Evaluation Report. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n Service, E D 072 133, August 1972. Jones,  W i l l i a m Lane. " C o m p a r i s o n o f C o g n i t i v e and Change o f N i n t h Grade Students i n Open-Space S p a c e C l a s s e s . " E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , A r i z o n a University, 197k.  Affective and ClosedState  Judd,  David Edward. "The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f L o c u s o f C o n t r o l as a P e r s o n a l i t y V a r i a b l e t o Student A t t i t u d e i n the Open S c h o o l E n v i r o n m e n t . " P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Maryland, 197k.  "151 K e n n e d y , V. J . , a n d S a y , M i c h a e l . "Comparison o f the E of Open-Area Versus C l o s e d - A r e a S c h o o l s on t h e C o Gains o f Students." U n i v e r s i t y of Houston, Bureau Education; Research and S e r v i c e s , Report and F a c t 8(k) F e b r u a r y 1971. Killough, Charles Kyle. "An A n E f f e c t s that a Nongraded i n an Open-Space S c h o o l , o f P u p i l s . " E d . D. d i s s e r  1971 .  ffects gnitive of Sheet  alysis of the Longitudinal Elementary Program, Conducted Had on t h e C o g n i t i v e Achievement t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Houston,  Kohler, Paul Terence. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f O p e n a n d T r a d i t i o n a l Education: C o n d i t i o n s that Promote S e l f - C o n c e p t . " Ph. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C o n n e c t i c u t , 1973. A l s o a v a i l a b l e i n a n E R I C R e p r o d u c t i o n , E D 075 903. Koskoff, Charlotte Goldstein. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e S e l f - C o n c e p t of C h i l d r e n E n r o l l e d i n American T r a d i t i o n a l S c h o o l s . " P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C o n n e c t i c u t , 1973. LaForge; Herman Eugene.. "The E f f e c t o f t h e Open S p a c e D e s i g n of an E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l Upon t h e P e r s o n a l i t y Characterist i c s o f S t u d e n t s . " E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Houston, 1973. LeRoy,  J u d i t h Martin.. "Classroom Climate and Student Percept i o n s : An E x p l o r a t o r y Study o f Third-Grade Classrooms i n S e l e c t e d O p e n S p a c e a n d S e l f - C o n t a i n e d S c h o o l s . " P h . D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1973.  Lynch,  Peter. "The E f f e c t s o f t h e D i f f ment Found i n Open P l a n L e a r n i n g Contained Classrooms on t h e A t t i t Grade F i v e and S i x P u p i l s . " Ontar (Mimeographed.)  erent Learning EnvironCommunities and i n S e l f u d e s and P e r c e p t i o n s o f i o , Canada, A p r i l 1969.  M c P a r t l a n d , James, E p s t e i n , Joyce L., and M c D i l l , Edward L. S t u d e n t R e a c t i o n s t o t h e T r a n s i t i o n f r o m Open E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l t o J u n i o r H i g h S c h o o l : A Case S t u d y - R e p o r t No. 139. B e t h e s d a , Md.: E R I C D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , E D 069 O k O , 1972. MacPherson, Murdock. "Open Space S c h o o l s i n S a s k a t o o n . " Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan School Trustees' Association, 1972. (Mimeographed.) McRae,  B . C. " E f f e c t o f Open-Area I n s t r u c t i o n on Reading Achievement." Research Report prepared by Vancouver School B o a r d , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , : C a n a d a , 1970. (Mimeographed.)  M o o d i e , A . G. "A S t u d y o f R e a d i n g A c h i e v e m e n t i n a Secondary School Population." Research Report prepared by Vancouver S c h o o l B o a r d , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , C a n a d a , 1971, (Mimeographed. )  152 Nash,  B . C , a n d C h r i s t i e , T. G. "Sudbury Board o f Education Open S c h o o l s P r o j e c t . " P r e p a r e d b y t h e M i d n o r t h e r n Centre, O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o rS t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n , May 1972. (Mimeographed.)  Nash,  B . C., a n d C h r i s t i e , T. G. "Sudbury Board o f Education Comparison o f A l e x a n d e r P u b l i c S c h o o l w i t h 3 Non-Open Schools: Programmes and Outcomes." Prepared by t h e M i d n o r t h e r n C e n t r e , O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o rS t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n , M a y 1973. (Mimeographed.)  Newton, E a r l e E. "Open Space S c h o o l s : A F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y o f Measurement i n t h e A f f e c t i v e Domain." Saskatchewan S c h o o l T r u s t e e s ' A s s o c i a t i o n , J u n e 1973. (Mimeographed.) Oliver, Adela. "Reading P a t t e r n s o f Second Grade O p e n C l a s s e s . " P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Y e s h i v a  Children i n University,  1973. Olson,  Curtis. "A C o m p a r i s o n S t u d y Attitudes o f Junior High Schoo Concept Elementary School and S c h o o l . " E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,  1973.  0'  In l a Un  volving Achievement and S t u d e n t s f r o n a n Open-«' Self-Contained Elementary i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska,  N e i l l , Patrick. " C r e a t i v e C h i l d r e n i n Open Space Contained Classrooms." 1974* ( M i m e o g r a p h e d . )  and  Self-  Owen,  Steven, Froman, Robin, and C a l c h e r a , David. Effects of Open E d u c a t i o n o n S e l e c t e d C o g n i t i v e a n d A f f e c t i v e Meas u r e s . B e t h e s d a , Md.: E R I C D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , E D 093 9 5 6 , April 1974.  P i t t s ,  J o e M. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f S e l e c t e d S t u d e n t a n d E n v i r o n mental V a r i a b l e s i n Open-Area and T r a d i t i o n a l l y - C o n s t r u c t e d E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l s . " E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , North T e x a s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1974*  Poppink, William. E v a l u a t i o n : Open Concept S c h o o l f o r I n d i a n E d u c a t i o n . B e t h e s d a , Md.: E R I C D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , E D 091 1 1 6 , 1972. Reynolds, Robert. A Comparative Evaluation of the Effects of a n Open C l a s s r o o m I n s t r u c t i o n P r o g r a m . B e t h e s d a , Md.: . E R I C D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , E D 093 9 0 7 , 1974R o b i n s o n , J a c k Wayne. "Self-Concept and Reading Achievement o f T h i r d Grade Students i n Schools D i f f e r i n g i n Degrees o f O p e n n e s s . " E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a ,  1974Rudawski, Joseph. "The C o m p a r a t i v e E f f e c t o f Open Space Versus Self-Contained Classrooms on P u p i l Self-Concept Developm e n t . " P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , S a i n t L o u i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1974*  153 Sackett, John Williams. "Comparison o f S e l f - C o n c e p t and Achievement o f S i x t h Grade S t u d e n t s i n an Open Space S c h o o l , S e l f - C o n t a i n e d S c h o o l , and D e p a r t m e n t a l i z e d S c h o o l . " P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Iowa, 1971. S c h e i r e r , Mary Ann. "A S t u d y o f t h e E f f e c t s o f O p e n C l a s s r o o m E d u c a t i o n on C h i l d r e n s ' Achievement, S e l f - C o n c e p t and A t t i t u d e s . " M. A . T h e s i s , B i n g h a m t o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. S e w e l l , A l l a n P., a n d D o r n s e i f , A l l a n W. Controlled Multivaria t e V a l u a t i o n o f Open and T r a d i t i o n a T E d u c a t i o n a t t h e J u n i o r H i g h S c h o o l L e v e l . B e t h e s d a , Md.: ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , ED 0 7 k 1kk, 1973. Spigel, J. Open A r e a S t u d y . B e t h e s d a , R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , E D 091 850,  Md.: ERIC 197k.  Document  T o w n s e n d , J a m e s W. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f T e a c h e r S t y l e a n d Pupil A t t i t u d e and Achievement i n C o n t r a s t i n g ^ S c h o o l s -..OpenSpace, D e p a r t m e n t a l i z e d , and S e l f - C o n t a i n e d . " Ed. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Kansas, 1971. Walker, Jess Morgan. "A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y o f P e r s o n a l i z e d R e a d i n g i n an Open-Learning Environment and B a s a l T e x t Reading i n a T r a d i t i o n a l - L e a r n i n g Environment." Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Warner, Jack Bruce. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f S t u d e n t s ' a n d Teachers' Performance i n an Open-Area F a c i l i t y and i n S e l f Contained Classrooms." U n i v e r s i t y of Houston, Bureau of E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h and S e r v i c e s , R e p o r t and F a c t Sheet 8(8) (Sept. 197D. White,  James W i l l i a m . "Differen a l E l e m e n t a r y S t u d e n t s on C h a n g e s i n Same C h a r a c t e r i M i d d l e S c h o o l . " P h . D. d i s Pittsburgh, 1973.  Wren,  Sara Jean Pennington. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f A f f e c t i v e Factors between C o n t a i n e d C l a s s r o o m s and Open A r e a C l a s s r o o m s . " E d . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f H o u s t o n , 1972.  York  ces between Selected Cha stics after sertation, U  Open and Traditionracteristics and S i x Months i n a niversity of  County Board of E d u c a t i o n . "The Open P l a n Response to Change." O n t a r i o , York County E d u c a t i o n , 1970. (Mimeographed.)  S c h o o l as Board of  a  154 D.  OTHER  SOURCES  Dixon,  W. J . e d . B M D : B i o m e d i c a l C o m p u t e r P r o g r a m s , University of California Press, January 1973.  King,  E t h e l M. e d . T e a c h e r ' s S k i l l s . T o r o n t o : Thomas  King,  E t h e l M. e d . M a n u a l f o r A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , S u p e r v i s o r s a n d C o u n s e l l o r s . T o r o n t o : Thomas N e l s o n a n d Sons, 1 9 6 5 .  Manual, Canadian Nelson and Sons,  Thorndike, Robert L., Hagen, E l i z a b e t h , Canadian Cognitive A b i l i t i e s Test Thomas N e l s o n a n d Sons, 1970.  E.  COMPUTER  Tests 1967  Berkeley:  o f  Basic  and Lorge, Irving. P2/F1. Toronto:  PROGRAMS  B j e r r i n g , J a m e s H., a n d S e a g r a v e s , P a u l . UBC T R I P T r i a n g u l a r R e g r e s s i o n Package,, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia C o m p u t i n g C e n t r e , J u n e 1974* UBC  BMD 0 2 R . Stepwise Regression. Adapted by Jason U C L A BMD d o c u m e n t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o m p u t i n g C e n t r e , D e c . 1974*  Halm from Columbia  UBC  BMD 1 0 V . General Linear Hypothesis, Adapted by B j e r r i n g , J . H . , G r e i g , M., a n d H a l m , J . f r o m U C L A documentation, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre, 1975.  APPENDIX INFORMATION  A  CONCERNING THE D I M E N S I O N S •QUESTIONNAIRE  OF  SCHOOLING  156 Dimensions of Schooling Questionnaire The  q u e s t i o n n a i r e was  W e i s s , C.  W.  F i s h e r , and  developed  Don  o f open e d u c a t i o n .  p r o v i d e d by  R o s s E.  format  areas.  i n a study  on  the e x t e n t  activities,  decision-making, tion,  composition  trol,  and  time  to  identify  i n ten  program  p h y s i c a l environment, s t r u c t u r e f o r  of c l a s s e s , student  role of teacher.  Two  c r i t e r i a had  or category  t o be  of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The  B a r t h i n 1969.  each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c could r e a d i l y  be  allowing teachers ranking  The  s h o u l d h a v e two  ranked  to the i n s t r u c t i o n a l  several  times  degree of  before  t h i r t y - o n e items  the f i n a l  relate  twenty-three  s i t u a t i o n of  q u e s t i o n n a i r e had  not  prethat  o r more m a n i f e s t a t i o n s t h a t  the i t e m s  a s p e c t s o f t h e w h o l e s c h o o l , and  The  as  openness,  to d e s c r i b e t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o g r a m  the o p t i o n s f o r each o f the  teacher.  first  s e c o n d c r i t e r i o n was  i n order of r e l a t i v e  DISC V Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . E i g h t o f  relate  was  could  the a s s u m p t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g open e d u c a t i o n Roland  con-  satisfied  t h a t the open m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  by  instruc-  e v a l u a t i o n , student  i n c l u d e d i n t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n o f open e d u c a t i o n .  sented  a model  scheduling, i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n of  before a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  contradict  character-  t e n a r e a s u s e d were s e t t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s ,  m a t e r i a l s and  was  to  individualization.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f open e d u c a t i o n  The  Joel  t h e y f o l l o w e d was  They a d o p t e d h i s a n a l y s i s o f i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n thirty-one  Traub,  program embodied the  The  G i b b o n s i n 1970  by  V)  M u s e l l a , to a s s e s s  which a teacher's i n s t r u c t i o n a l istics  (DISC  the  of  to  of  by  the  general  the  items  responding  been r e f i n e d and v e r s i o n , DISC V,  evaluated was  accepted.  157 The by  the  in  1973.  second  f i n d i n g s of Using  administered in  one  for  school  old  this  of  (68  the  items  were  on  more  and  other  whole  relating  to  the  instructional  From  each  Fisher these by  openness  programs  students  Students  in  they  were  him as  and less  i n open seated  measured i n more  watched often  and/or  than  Since  closed  Fisher's  the  items  retained  low  DISC  of  re-  the  three of  differences on  a  variety  groups  I I .  listened i n  r e l a t -  the  levels  to less  d i f f e r -  Students  a c t i v i t i e s  students  using  more  i n  often,  teachers open  pro-  a r c h i t e c t u r e s e t t i n g s were  more  active,  less  more  often  often,  architectural  more - i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n  and  the  openness  the  eleven  thirty  situation  and  diverse  architecture settings perceived  students  of  by  open  than  and  of  openness  instructional  students  have  closed  between  of  significant  degrees  than  to  i n  three  obtained  distributions,  medium,  that  the  omitted  school,  these  high,  found  engaged  transit,  of  i n  schools  categories I I . He  Fisher schools  were  a l l teachers  the  grams. that  f o r  traditional  DISC  Fisher^  elementary  teachers)  into  extent  Charles  Scores  of  between  i n  the  placed  selected with  program  were  from  arts  30  aspects  openness.  but  of  of  teacher.  were  open  staffs  by  some  questionnaire,  dimensions  variables studied  ing  language  teachers  general  exist  the  arts  22  did  teaching  of  language  only  program  model  i n  schools  teachers  the  conducted  openness  area  responding  e a r l i e r  study  Ontario.  open  maining  doctoral  v a l i d a t e d to  Southern  The  to  I I , was  i n  schools.  ing  DISC  system  students  of  a  i t to  program  year  version,  pace  space  study  was  and  and  i n  transit  settings. their more  Students  instructional  i n group  interpersonal  f r i c t i o n  several  studies  settings. completed,  other  h a v e b e e n c o n d u c t e d u s i n g d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s o f t h e DISC Questionnaire.  Charles F i s h e r , "Educational Environments i n Schools D i f f e r i n g i n A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d P r o g r a m O p e n n e s s " ( P h . D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto, 1973).  APPENDIX THE DIMENSIONS  OP  SCHOOLING  B QUESTIONNAIRE  (DISC  V)  PREVIOUSLY COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IN APPENDIX B, LEAF 160, NOT MICROFILMED.  "Dimensions of Schooling Questionnaire", copyrighted by the Educational Evaluation Center, The Ontario I n s t i t u t e foe Studies in Education.  DIMENSIONS OF SCHOOLING QUESTIONNAIRE School  FORM V  Circle the age level(s) of the students y o u teach. 5  Number  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Date  Check the box which corresponds to your major role in the school.  Librarian or Resource Teacher  Regular Primary Teacher  Administrator  Regular Junior Teacher  Special Education Teacher  Other (Specify)  The purpose of the questionnaire is to obtain a description of y o u r class o n a variety of dimensions. Before responding note the following points carefully.  EXAMPLE  1. R E S P O N D T O T H E I T E M S IN T E R M S O F W H A T A C T U A L L Y H A P P E N S / IN Y O U R S C H O O L S I T U A T I O N . D O N O T R E S P O N D IN T E R M S O F WHAT Y O U THINK SHOULD HAPPEN.  Library Usage. T h i s item is concerned with the students' opportunities to go to the library.  2. " C l a s s " in this questionnaire is defined as the group of students assigned to y o u at this time.  A.  3. Each page contains one dimension o f schooling which is described b y several categories.  B.  4. Read all of the categories o n each page before responding to that dimension.  C.  ITEM  Students go to the school library individually whenever they wish. Students go to the school library individually with the teacher's permission. Students go to the school library in groups with the teacher's or librarian's supervision.  5. F o r each dimension, rank the categories in terms of how well they describe your class situation. Assign the highest rank (1) to the category which occurs most often or to the most students. Assign the second highest rank (2) to the  D.  Students go to the school library mainly outside regular school hours.  category which happens the next most often ... and so o n down to the lowest ranked category. 6. Do not rank categories which are inappropriate to y o u r situation. 7. For any item d o not use the same rank for more than one o p t i o n (that is, avoid ties).  Q  Fd  Ii t i An  rontor  T h e response in the example describes a situation in which the most frequently occurring category is " C " ; the second most frequently occurring category is " A " ; the third most frequently occurring category is "B'J^and "D" simply does not occur. O O  REMEMBER Y O U M A Y RANK AS FEW OR AS M A N Y O F T H E  161  1.  A S S I G N M E N T O F S T U D E N T S TO T E A C H E R S . This section i s concerned w i t h who m a k e s t h e d e c i s i o n s a b o u t student assignments to teachers.  A.  Class assignments students.  are decided  u p o n by-  B.  Class  assignments  are decided  by  C.  Class assignments teachers.  are decided  upon  by  D.  Class assignments are decided principal o r v i c e - p r i n c i p a l .  upon  by the  2.  parents.  AGE RANGE. This section i s concerned with of age o f s t u d e n t s a s s i g n e d t o a t e a c h e r .  the  range  A.  Students assigned to a teacher are about the same a g e ; a g e i s t h e p r i m a r y c r i t e r i o n f o r a s s i g n i n g a student to a class. i  B.  Students a s s i g n e d t o a t e a c h e r a r e i n a two or three year range; there i s a semi-graded s y s t e m w h i c h w i l l a l l o w , t o some e x t e n t , that individual differences i n physical, social and i n t e l l e c t u a l m a t u r i t y w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d in a s s i g n i n g students to a class o r grade.  C.  Students assigned to a teacher vary i by more than t h r e e y e a r s ; t h e r e i s a age system which allows students w i t h v a r i e t y o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and ages to t h e same class.  n age multia wide be i n  162 3.  TIME SCHEDULING. This section i s concerned with the amount o f time w h i c h i s b l o c k e d i n t o s c h e d u l e d a c t i v i t i e s .  A.  Fully other materi studen  B.  Mostly unsheduled: A c t i v i t i e s are not scheduled f o r most o f the day, but t h e r e a r e some a c t i v i t i e s (no more t h a n i o f t h e d a y ) that are held at specific times (e.g. a French l e s s o n g i v e n b y a t e a c h e r who c o m e s from outside the school f o r reading,, e t c . )  C.  Scheduled and unscheduled: Approximately 2 the day i s u n s c h e d u l e d w i t h t h e o t h e r \ b l o c k e d i n t o scheduled a c t i v i t i e s .  D.  Mostly scheduled: A c t i v i t i e s are scheduled f o r most o f the day (about 3 / 4 ) but the r e s t o f the t i m e i s l e f t u n s c h e d u l e d so t h a t a c t i v i t i e s . o c c u r as s t u d e n t s ' and t e a c h e r s ' i n t e r e s t s dictate.  E.  F u l l y s c h e d u l e d : The f u l l d a y i s o r g a n i z e d a c t i v i t i e s t h a t o c c u r a c c o r d i n g t o some prearranged timetable.  4.  A.  unscheduled: A c t i v i t i e s ( e . g . math o r s u b j e c t s , outdoor p l a y , work w i t h a r t a l s , e t c . ) a r e n o t scheduled but occur as ts' and/or teachers' interests dictate.  into  FREE TIME. T h i s s e c t i o n i s concerned w i t h t h e amount of time during which students are free to pursue their own i n t e r e s t s . T h i s i s n o t t h e same a s independent s t u d y time where s t u d e n t s work on p r o j e c t s o r a s s i g n m e n t s in a p a r t i c u l a r subject area. | The e n t i r e d a y i s a v a i l a b l e f o r s t u d e n t s p u r s u e t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s ( f r e e t i m e ) .  to  B.  At least time.  free  C.  One - two h o u r s each day.  D.  Less each  E.  There  half  than one day. i s no  of  the day  of  hour  free  free  of  time  i s available  time  free  are  time  available.  as  .  available  i s  available  163 5.  RULE MAKING. This section i s concerned who m a k e s t h e r u l e s w h i c h g o v e r n school  A.  Rules f o rstudent conduct a r e made b y t h e administrative staff (principal, viceprincipal).  B.  Rules f o rstudent teachers.  conduct  a r e made  by the  C.  Rules f o rstudent parents.  conduct  a r e made  by t h e  D.  Rules f o rstudent students.  conduct  a r e made  by the  6.  with determining behaviour.  RULE ENFORCING. T h i s s e c t i o n i s c o n c e r n e d with d e t e r m i n i n g who e n f o r c e s t h e r u l e s g o v e r n i n g general school behaviour.  A.  Rules f o rstudent conduct a r e enforced by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f (principal, vice-principal).  B.  Rules f o rstudent the teachers.  conduct  are enforced  by  C.  Rules f o rstudent the parents.  conduct  are enforced  by  D.  Rules f o rstudent the students.  conduct  are enforced  by  16k 7.  DEFINING GENERAL OBJECTIVES. T h i s s e c t i o n i s concerned w i t h who determines the general o b j e c t i v e s , aims, goals, philosophy, expected outcomes of s c h o o l i n g .  General o b j e c t i v e s are determined by t h e board, and/or the c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  school staff.  B,  General o b j e c t i v e s are determined p r i n c i p a l and/or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l .  by  the  C.  General  objectives are  determined  by  teachers,  D.  General  o b j e c t i v e s are  determined  by  parents.  E.  General  o b j e c t i v e s are  determined  by  students.  8.  CONTENT ORGANIZATION. This item way t h a t c o n t e n t i s o r g a n i z e d as  i s concerned p a r t of the  A.  Content i s organized along t r a d i t i o n a l subject matter l i n e s (e.g. math, s c i e n c e , social studies).  B.  C o n t e n t i s c o m b i n e d i n t o two o r of subjects (e.g. environmental communication arts).  C.  C o n t e n t i s i n t e g r a t e d ; t h e r e i s no organize content into subjects or  more groupings studies,  attempt to groupings.  with the program.  165  NOTE  -  I t e m 8, w h i c h y o u j u s t c o m p l e t e d , w a s concerned with the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f c o n t e n t as p a r t o f y o u r program. The f o l l o w i n g i t e m s , 9 t h r o u g h 31 a r e r e l a t e d t o this organization of content.  1.  Please respond as before by r a n k i n g the categories i n t e r m s o f how w e l l t h e y d e s c r i b e y o u r class s i t u a t i o n f o r each of the subjects you teach. This w i l l r e q u i r e a column o f ranks f o r each subject that you teach.  2.  I f you teach a subject which, i s not l i s t e d , respond i n the column headed "other" and s p e c i f y the subject.  3.  I f you use " i n t e g r a t e d subjects" respond i n the column headed "other" and s p e c i f y "integrated subjects" i n the places provided.  166 9.  DETERMINING INSTRUCTIONAL section i s concerned with c o n t e n t and a c t i v i t i e s o f  OBJECTIVES. This who determines the the program.  < EH CO  o  A.  Instructional o b j e c t i v e s are determined by the school board, and/or c e n t r a l administrative staff.  B.  Instructional the p r i n c i p a l  o b j e c t i v e s are determined and/or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l .  by  C.  Instructional teachers.  o b j e c t i v e s are  determined  by  D.  Instructional parents.  o b j e c t i v e s are  determined  by  E.  Instructional students.  o b j e c t i v e s are  determined  by  10.  D E V E L O P M E N T OF M A T E R I A L S . T h i s s e concerned w i t h the amount o f p e r s v o l v e m e n t t h a t s t u d e n t s and t e a c h the development of m a t e r i a l s f o r  +  M;  52; H O CO  EH  M O O CO  t—1 P  <  rt  rt K  EH O  ction i s onal i n ers have i n the classroom. £5  A."  There i s l i t t l e involvement or students i n developing m most m a t e r i a l s i n use are r "packages" (e.g. reading se texts, computer-assisted in  of teacher aterials; i eady-to-use ries, sets struction,  s and/ . e . of math etc.).  g g ff!  B.  There i s students materials ers, stud sources i not i n a  C.  There i s a great deal of involvement of teachers and/or students i n developing materials; i . e . most m a t e r i a l s i n use have been developed, created, or adapted by s t u d e n t s , teachers, and o t h e r s s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r s i t u a t i o n s which arose i n this classroom (e.g. c o l l e c t i o n s of o b j e c t s f o r use i n working out math problems, student-made books, tape recordings or films made by s t u d e n t s o r t e a c h e r s , e q u i p m e n t by parents, etc.).  some i n v o l v e m e n t of teachers i n developing materials; i . e i n use a r e t h i n g s chosen by ents, or others from a wide n a ready-to-use form (e.g. s e r i e s , an a b a c u s , a f i l m , e  and/or . most teachvariety books tc.).  EH CO P;  &  i—i  P  <t EH  +  0 0  w_  H  <  rt EH O  167 11  S E L E C T I O N OF M A T E R I A L S . This section w i t h the involvement students have i n materials with which to work.  i s concerned selecting  w o is; M  the  A.  Students choose f o r themselves from a l l m a t e r i a l s a v a i l a b l e a n d may bring i n m a t e r i a l s from o u t s i d e the classroom.  B.  Students choose from by the teachers.  C.  Students f o r them  D.  Student i s assigned m a t e r i a l s p r e s c r i b e d to members o f h i s subgroup o f the c l a s s . (Same m a t e r i a l s f o r a l l students i n the same subgroup: d i f f e r e n t m a t e r i a l s f o r each subgroup).  E,  Student i s assigned m a t e r i a l s p r e s c r i b e d to a l l members o f h i s c l a s s . (Same m a t e r i a l s f o r a l l s t u d e n t s i n t h e same class).  alternatives  PI  EH  o co  c3 Pi M  PI EH  O  <t! S  O co  Pi  EH O  suggested  are assigned materials prescribed i n d i v i d u a l l y .  PI EH  12.  STUDENTS' M O B I L I T Y . This s e c t i o n i s concerned w i t h the amount o f freedom which s t u d e n t s h a v e to move a r o u n d t h e school on a r e g u l a r b a s i s .  A.  S t u d e n t s do n o t n e e d t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f the teacher to l e a v e the classroom, but freely move i n and o u t o f t h e room ( o r a r e a ) to use the l i b r a r y , resource centre, etc.  B.  Students must ask the to move i n and o u t o f the l i b r a r y , resource permission i s usually  C.  S t u d e n t s move i n and o u t o f t h e c l a s s r o o m to use the l i b r a r y , resource c e n t r e , e t c . , o n l y in special circumstances ( i . e .with special p e r m i s s i o n ) o r as c l a s s groups.  teacher's permission the classroom to use centre, e t c . , but given readily.  •'A  o  Pi  X  o CO  EH <«J  S  <  M O O  co  H PI  w. P4  Pi  w  m EH  o  13.  F L E X I B I L I T Y OF ENVIRONMENT. This s e c t i o n i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h who m a k e s t h e d e c i s i o n s about the arrangement and the s e t t i n g o f the l e a r n i n g area.  !Z5  Pi EH CO  o  A.  The a r r a n g e m e n t o f f u r n i t u r e a n d e q u i p m e n t i n t h e l e a r n i n g area i s decided upon by t h e administrative staff.  B.  The a r r a n g e m e n t o f f u r n i t u r e a n d e q u i p m e n t i n t h e l e a r n i n g area i s decided upon and changed by the teachers.  C.  The a r r a n g e m e n t o f f u r n i t u r e a n d e q u i p m e n t i n t h e l e a r n i n g area i s decided upon and changed by the students.  rH H  F3  K  EH  M O  O CO  <  O  rH  +  p  «! rt  rt EH  o  is; <«! P.  H .  LEARNING ENVIRONMENT. This section concerns the s i z e o f t h e area used by students during the school day. § rH O CO  A.  Learning a c t i v i t i e s take place s t u d e n t ' s own d e s k o r t a b l e .  a t the  Learning a c t i v i t i e s take p l a c e i n a number of different places (centres) within the classroom area.  Learning a c t i v i t i e s of different places school.  D.  take p l a c e i n a number (centres) within the  Learning a c t i v i t i e s take place outside the school: t h e community and i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s are incorporated into the l e a r n i n g environment.  EH CO  P  <  EH  O  <u o S co  Ci3 M  p <J F-q rt  rt F-q EH O  169 15.  STUDENT PACING. This section i s concerned with the pace a t which the student works.  <  PI  EH CO o  M O CO A.  The set  B.  The s t u d e n t i s e x p e c t e d to work a t a pace set f o r t h e members o f h i s subgroup o f t h e class.  D,  16.  student i s expected to work a t a f o r a l l members o f t h e c l a s s .  The him  student works individually.  The  student  sets  at a  pace  h i s own  pace  M EH O O CO  H P  <JJ  s  EH O  prescribed f o r  pace.  INDEPENDENT STUDY TIME. This section cerns the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f independent time; students work by themselves on jects of their choice but i n keeping the wide range o b j e c t i v e s o f the subj area ( e . g . d u r i n g a geography u n i t on Middle East, a student might use h i s pendent study time to create a paper map o f t h e S i n a i P e n n i n s u l a ) .  constudy prowith ect the indemache  A.  Independent study time i s a v a i l a b l e than 3 hours p e r week.  B.  Independent study time 1-3 h o u r s p e r w e e k .  i s available  from  C.  Independent than 1 hour  study time p e r week.  i s available  less  D.  Independent  study  i s not  time  PI  +  f o r more  available.  £5 PI  EH  CO o !25  W M O CO  PI  <  HH EH O O S CO  H P  Pi  <u EH Pi  o  1 70 52i  17.  STUDENT INTERACTION. This item i s w i t h the students' o p p o r t u n i t i e s to through discussion with h i s peers.  concerned interact  p EH  CO o  A.  Interaction with peers through d i s c u s s i o n i s not encouraged; each student i s expected to work i n d e p e n d e n t l y w i t h o u t exchanging ideas with h i s peers.  B.  Interaction with peers through d i s c u s s i o n i s permitted at certain times p a r t i c u l a r l y after assignments have been completed.  C.  Interaction with peers through d i s c u s s i o n i s encouraged by the t e a c h e r and a r e g u l a r p a r t of the learning.  18.  FORMULATING- A P P R O A C H E S section i s concerned wi which teachers help stu approaches to l e a r n i n g  H O CO  P  X EH <  <  :—i o o co  TO L E A R N I N G . This t h the e x t e n t to dents arrive at and problem solving.  o  S t u d e n t s f o r m u l a t e t h e i r own methods of l e a r n i n g and s o l v i n g p r o b l e m s ( e . g . a student studying the A r c t i c independently consults several people, l o o k s i n the card catalogue a t the l i b r a r y , and w r i t e s to the government for information).  B.  Students choose from a l suggested by the t e a c h e solving problems (e.g. A r c t i c asks the teacher suggests two b o o k s , a f to the government.  C.  Students are assigned f o r l e a r n i n g and s o l v i student studying the A tasks of writing a l e t r e a d i n g two b o o k s , a n d  ternat r f o r a stud f o r h ilm st  ive methods learning and ent studying the elp. The teacher r i p , and writing  methods by ng problems rctic i s as t e r to the viewing a  the teacher (e.g. a signed the government, f i l m s t r i p ) .  P  <! W rt  rt  « EH  O  P EH  +  HH  525  H O O CO  <  CO  A.  H  W H O co  X  EH  <tj  s  M P  x  EH  o  19.  This section i s conP E E R GROUP A S S I S T A N C E , work cerned w i t h t h e extent to which students with other students on schoolwork.  P  en pq o pq  o  A.  CO Students independently seek a s s i s t a n c e i n t h e i r schoolwork from peers o r other students^ t h i s i s accepted and encouraged as a v a l i d way o f s e e k i n g s o l u t i o n s o r o f e x p l o r a t i o n .  B.  There i s s t u d e n t - t o - s t u d e n t a s s i s t a n c e on teacher-initiated basis (e.g. the teacher assigns a good reader to help a poorer reader or arrange f o r a tutor).  Assistance  20.  from  the  171  525  CO  P EH  O O CO  525 M  (=1 <u  pq rt  rt pq EH O  a  teacher-  OTHER ADULT INVOLVEMENT. This section i s concerned with the involvement of adults other than teachers i n the classroom.  525  P  A.  A l lteaching room t e a c h e r  i s done by t h e r e g u l a r c l a s s and s p e c i a l s u b j e c t teachers,  pq o pq o  CO  B.  Although most o f the t e a c h i n g i s done by the classroom and s p e c i a l teachers, occasionally there are v i s i t o r s , parents o r v o l u n t e e r s who h a v e s p e c i a l k n o w l e d g e o f a t o p i c , o r who h e l p i n a p r a c t i c a l way in the classroom.  C.  A l t h o u g h much the classroom are regularly and f r e q u e n t v the classroom considered an experience.  o f t h e t e a c h i n g i s done by and s p e c i a l teachers, there involved parents, volunteers i s i t o r s who a r e w e l c o m e i n and whose i n v o l v e m e n t i s important part of the l e a r n i n g  EH CO  P  K  EH  <! S  o o co  •!25  p  <  pq rt  rt pq EH  o  172 21.  COOPERATIVE PLANNING. This section i s concerned with the extent to which teachers plan t h e i r program together and share i n f o r m a t i o n about students.  m  O  a  H O  w A.  Teachers plan and teach independently o f e a c h o t h e r a n d s h a r e l i t t l e o r no information about students.  B.  T e a c h e r s p l a n a n d t e a c h t o g e t h e r b u t do not share information about students.  C.  Teachers p l a n and teach independently but do n o t s h a r e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t students.  D.  Teachers plan and information about  teach together students.  and  . ^  <t ^ +  e>  PI is; <J M PC W M Pi P£ EH O <J{ H <aj O W Es W H o  share  !23  22.  MEDIA USAGE. This section s e l e c t i o n and use o f media aids i n instruction.  <  concerns the as teaching  PI EH  CO  o  PI Pi  H  A.  The t e a c h e r t a k e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s e l e c t i n g and using media.  B.  The t e a c h e r t a k e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s e l e c t i n g media which a r e used by t h e students.  C.  Students take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and u s i n g m e d i a .  f o r selecting  o co  EH  O o co  <  m  pi  o  173 23.  •  TEACHER FOCUS. This section concerns the s i z e o f the student group addressed by the teacher a t one time.  P EH  co  o  p  A.  The t e a c h e r a whole.  directs  attention  t o t h e c l a s s as-  B.  The t e a c h e r d i r e c t s of the class.  attention  to  C.  The t e a c h e r students.  attention  to i n d i v i d u a l  directs  O CO  EH  <J  S  £5 H  O  Pi •o  CO  rt C  M  M  +  o  E-  subgroups  S3  24.  TEACHER ROLE. This section i s concerned with the role the teacher plays i n the student's contact w i t h what i s being learned.  P EH  CO  H  o  CO  A.  The t e a c h e r p r o v i d e s g u i d a n c e as a resource person t o who s t u d e n t s come w h e n i n n e e d o f assistance.  B.  The s t u d e n t s c h o o s e t o p i c s f o r s t u d y the teacher organizes i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s .  and  C.  The t e a c h e r c h o o s e s t o p i c s f o r s t u d y organizes i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s .  and  D.  The t e a c h e r p r o v i d e s i n s t r u c t i o n sequence o f planned lessons.  through  p  O  a  EH  <  CiJ M  P  o  co  w  rt  rt w EH  O  17k !25  25.  SUBGROUPING C R I T E R I A . This section c o n c e r n e d w i t h how s u b g r o u p s w i t h i n class are developed.  i s the  P) EH  CO  pq o pq  o  A.  Students group themselves according to t h e i r own c r i t e r i a ( e . g . i n t e r e s t s , f r i e n d ships, etc.).  B.  Students are grouped basis of information interests, aptitude, maturity.  C.  Students a r e grouped by t h e teacher on t h e b a s i s o f random assignment ( e . g . a l p h a b e t i c a l l y , by sex, o r a g e ) .  26.  CO  PI K  <  EH  M O  <  o  P <  CO  S  £5  pq PH  pq EH  o  I  by t h e teacher on t h e about students' achievement, o r social  SUBGROUPING S T A B I L I T Y . This item i s concerned w i t h t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t a n d c h a n g e i n t h e comp o s i t i o n o f subgroups w i t h i n the c l a s s .  IZJ  PI EH  co  pq o pq  o  A.  Subgroups w i t h i n the class a r e established for the duration o f a specified period o f time ( e . g . f o r the school year o r f o r the term).  B.  Subgroups w i t h i n the c l a s s a r e establis and/or reorganized when t h e t e a c h e r f e e i t i s necessary and/or desirable (e.g. a new a c t i v i t y o r when s t u d e n t s ' i n t e r e change).  C.  Subgroups w i t h i n the clas a r e established and/or reorganized when s t u d e n t s f e e l i t i s n e c e s s a r y a n d / o r d e s i r a b l e ( e . g . f o r a new a c t i v i t y o r when s t u d e n t s ' i n t e r e s t s change).  hed l s f o r s t s  CO  Pi  is? HH  P4  p  pq  o  pq  EH  CO  pcj  o  «  EH  O  175 27.  PROMOTION TIMING. This section i s concerned with the timing o f student deci sions.  placement  Hi EH  co  PI  o  H O A.  P r o m o t i o n d e c i s i o n s a r e made the school year o r term.  a t t h e end o f  B.  Promotion each u n i t  a t t h e end o f  d e c i s i o n s a r e made o f study.  EH  <3j  co g  < M H PI O O CO pci  PC  E-  P r o m o t i o n d e c i s i o n s a r e made w h e n e v e r i t seems a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l student.  D.  Promotion does n o t o c c u r . Rather, students remain i n a c l a s s u n i t o r i n t a c t group f o r several years.  PI 28.  EVALUATION FOCUS. This concerned with the size being evaluated.  section i s o f t h e group  pq o is;  W M  o  CO A.  E v a l u a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s a r e t h e same f o r a l l students i n the school.  B.  E v a l u a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s a r e t h e same f o r a l l students i n the class, but d i f f e r from class to class i n the school.  C.  E v a l u a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s a r e t h e same f o r e a c h student w i t h i n a subgroup o f t h e c l a s s b u t d i f f e r from subgroup to subgroup.  D.  Evaluation procedures are different f o r each student i n t h e c l a s s .  EH CO PI  W  EH  s  <  M O  o  CO  ci3 is;  w  PH  p: E-  CI  176 29.  S3  This section i s T I M I N G OF E V A L U A T I O N . at which concerned with the times(s) evaluation takes place.  < P EH CO  pq  o  PI  S3  pq ffi H M  A.  Evaluation term.  takes  place  a t t h e end o f  each  B.  Evaluation takes u n i t o f work.  place  a t t h e end o f  each  C.  Evaluation takes a u n i t o f work.  place  several  during  D.  Evaluation  place  every  30.  takes  times  O CO  EH  <U  S  O O CO  + &  S3  I—I  rt  <  EH  rt  O  PI  pq  «  day.  STUDENT ROLE I N EVALUATION. T h i s section i s concerned with the degree to which students plan and use evaluation information for self-evaluation purposes.  S3  < P  EH CO  pq  o  .  % K M  A.  Students plan evaluation and use r e s u l t s f o r self-evaluation purposes.  B.  Teachers plan evaluation and students use results f o rself-evaluation purposes.  C.  T e a c h e r s p l a n e v a l u a t i o n a n d do. n o t p r o v i d e information f o r student s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n .  D.  The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p l a n s e v a l u a t i o n not provide information f o r student evaluation.  and does self-  o co  EH  < S  +  P  S3  H O  Pi  o  pq rt  < CO  M  <  rt pq EH  o  177 31.  EVALUATION PROCEDURES. This section concerns the types o f t e s t s and other evaluation instruments used i n student evaluation.  PI EH CO  P3 O  <  M  o  o  pq  CO  CO pcj  pq M  Evaluation i s based anecdotal reports.  on work  B.  Evaluation instruments in this classroom.  C.  Evaluation instruments used within the school (by other previous years).  D.  Standardized used.  used  (commercial)  samples  were  and  developed  were developed teachers o r i n  instruments  are  Ci3  PI EH  H O  pq EH  o  APPENDIX INFORMATION  CONCERNING  THE  G  SEARS  SELF-CONCEPT  INVENTORY  179 The  Sears The  S.  Sears  Self-Concept Sears  Inventory  Self-Concept  I n v e n t o r y was  of Stanford U n i v e r s i t y .  o f s t u d i e s i n the U n i t e d abbreviated 48-item  third  by  been u s e d i n a number  During  1966,  graders.  she  used  an  100-item i n v e n t o r y The  Kuder-Richardson  scores obtained  for this  p o p u l a t i o n o f 32  grade c h i l d r e n i s presented  i n Table  XVI,. ,  TABLE  Pauline  I t has  form of her o r i g i n a l  w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f 32 reliability  States.  developed  third  XVI  R E L I A B I L I T Y SCORES FOR THE SEARS SELF-CONCEPT INVENTORY ( N = 32 )  No.  Subtests 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  Physical Ability A t t r a c t i v e Appearance Convergent Mental A b i l i t y S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s w i t h Same Social Virtues Divergent Mental A b i l i t y Work H a b i t s Happy Q u a l i t i e s School Subjects  Total Self-Concept  ( a l l 48  Kuder-Richardson The third bright  48  third  ministered.  items)  reliability  graders I t was  48  .90  p o p u l a t i o n of  and  and  this  other children,  measure the  self-concept of a l l t h i r d  in  the  Hoyt r e l i a b i l i t y and  may  s h o r t v e r s i o n of the u s e d by  be  Sears  group  s c o r e s were o b t a i n e d f o r XVII.  ad-  study  grade students  i n Table  for  Self-Con-  the r e s e a r c h e r i n t h i s  i s presented  a  32  which i s s u i t a b l e  to  grade students  .75 .76 .89 .66 .68 .83 .64 .56 .60  contains vocabulary  t h a t was  third  xx  scores  cept Inventory  study.  r  Items  4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8  Sex  item i n v e n t o r y used w i t h t h i s  grade c h i l d r e n  of  used these  180 TABLE  XVII  R E L I A B I L I T Y SCORES FOR THE SEARS SELF-CONCEPT INVENTORY (N = 4 3 0 )  Subtests 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  No. o f I t e m s  Physical Ability A t t r a c t i v e Appearance Convergent Mental A b i l i t y S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s w i t h Same S e x Social Virtues Divergent Mental A b i l i t y Work H a b i t s Happy Q u a l i t i e s School Subjects  Total  Selt-Concept  ( a l l 48  items)  4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 48  r  a  .70 .66 .81 .57 .59 .75 .68 .48 .59 .93  Hoyt's (1941) E s t i m a t e o f R e l i a b i l i t y These s c o r e s a r e based, o n a t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n o f 4 3 0 . T h e r e was a t o t a l o f 442 t h i r d g r a d e s t u d e n t s i n t h e t e n s c h o o l s , b u t s c o r e s c o u l d n o t be o b t a i n e d on t w e l v e o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s .  181  APPENDIX THE  SEARS  D  SELF-CONCEPT  INVENTORY  182 N  a  m  .  e  Boy  School_  Girl  Date  Teacher  Some g i r l s a n d b o y s h a v e t h o u g h t a b o u t t h e t h i n g s t h e y do and d e c i d e d t h a t the i t e m s on t h e s e pages were h e l p f u l i n t h i n k i n g about themselves. This i s a chance f o r you to look at yours e l f and d e c i d e what y o u r s t r o n g p o i n t s a r e and what y o u r weak points are. T h i s i s n o t a t e s t ; we e x p e c t e v e r y o n e t o h a v e d i f f e r e n t a n s w e r s — s o be s u r e y o u r a n s w e r s show how y o u think about yourself. Y o u r a n s w e r s a r e p r i v a t e and w i l l be k e p t i n confidence. Read each i t e m o t h e r boys and Find (The for.) Now  and then g i r l s my  answer the question: Compared a g e , how do I r a t e n o w ?  with  the l i n e under whatever heading i n d i c a t e s your answer. words a t the top show what the l i n e s i n each column stand Mark an X on t h a t line. go  right  ahead.  Work  as  fast  as  you  l i k e .  Excellent  1.  Being  good  at  2.  Learning  3.  Making friends easily w i t h my o w n sex  4.  Having  5.  G e t t i n g my s c h o o l w o r k done on time and n o t g e t t i n g behind  6.  Being  able  7.  Being build  a good f o r my  8. '  Remembering learned  9.  Being w i l l i n g to have t h e i r  to  read  so  good  size age what  well and  I've  f o r others way sometimes  S o l v i n g problems i n ways others haven't tried  11.  Being confident, not nor timid  12.  Knowing  13.  B e i n g good a t t h i n g s t h a t require physical s k i l l  14.  Being  good  Not  ideas  10.  a  OK  rapidly  o r i g i n a l  how  B e t t e r than most  sports  things  new,  Very Good  to  do  shy  math  student  CO  Excellent  15.  Being a l e a d e r — o n e things started with sex  16.  T h i n k i n g up answers t o p r o b l e m s — a n s w e r s no one else has thought o f  17.  Being  18.  Being interested i n science; l e a r n i n g about t h i n g s t h a t s c i e n t i s t s do  19.  Being attractive, looking  20.  Having  21.  Making other at ease  22..  L e a r n i n g a b o u t new things even when o t h e r people aren't i n t e r e s t e d — s t u d y i n g a b o u t t h i n g s o n my o w n  23.  Getting a of l i f e  24.  Writing creative and poems  able  to  brains  to get my o w n  concentrate  good  f o r college people  feel  l o to f f u n o u t  stories  Very Good  Better than most  Excellent 25.  Being  26.  Being able to apply I've l e a r n e d  27.  Having p l e n t y of f r i e n d s among my own s e x  28.  S e e i n g new w a y s o f t h i n k i n g a b o u t t h i n g s and putting ideas together  29.  S p e n d i n g m o s t o f my t i m e on my w o r k , n o t g o o f i n g off  30.  H a v i n g good h a n d w r i t i n g , e v e n when I'm h u r r i e d  31.  Being not too skinny, not too f a t  32.  Having  33.  B e i n g s e n s i t i v e t o what others are f e e l i n g  34.  B e i n g a b l e t o see t h i n g s i n my m i n d e a s i l y when I wan t t o  35.  B e i n g a b l e t o change t h i n g s when t h e y d o n ' t s u i t me  Very good  B e t t e r than most  OK  N o t so g o o d  a good a t h l e t e what  brains  CO  Excell  36.  Being able correctly  37.  Enjoying  38.  Being  39.  Being active a f f a i r s with  40.  B e i n g i n t e r e s t e d i n new things; e x c i t e d about a l l there i s to l e a r n  41.  Well organized; materials ready needed  42.  Learning about people around the world and b e i n g i n t e r e s t e d i n them  43.  Having (nose,  44.  K n o w i n g w h a t t o do t o get the r i g h t answer to a problem  45.  Being with  46.  Letting go w h e n  to  games  'Very good  B e t t e r than most  OK  Not  so  good  spell  and  sports  smart i n social my o w n s e x  having when  nice features eyes, e t c . )  easy  to get  along  my imagination I-w a n t t o CD  Excellent  47.  Enjoying school  myself  48.  Doing' w e l l i n a r t work, p a i n t i n g , or drawing  Very good  Better than most  OK  Not  so  good  i n  CO  APPENDIX SCORE  SHEET  FOR  THE  SEARS  E SELF-CONCEPT  INVENTORY  189 TABLE X V I I I SCORE SHEET FOR THE SEARS SELF-CONCEPT INVENTORY Scorer  Teacher  School  Date  C h i l d ' s Name  1-6  1  7-12  2 7  13-18  19  31  31-36  43-48  43  44  4  8  33  45  46  4  8  Total  Happy. Qualities  School Subjects 12 18  17 23  24 30  29 35  34 40  39  11  22 28  27  Work Habits  Divergent Mental  Social Virtues  Social Relations Same Sex  21  6  5  10 16  15  32 38  37  37-42  9  20 26  25  25-30  4  3  8 14  13  19-24  Convergent Mental  Physical Ability  I terns  Attractive Appearance  STANFORD CENER FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT I N TEACHING P r o j e c t - P. S. S e a r s - 1970 - 1971  36 42  41 47  48  4  8  Total No.  items  4  4  4  48  Average Excellent = 5 V e r y good = 4  B e t t e r than most = 3 OK =2  N o t so g o o d = 1  APPENDIX INDIVIDUAL  REGRESSION  TABLES  F FOR  DEPENDENT  VARIABLES  TABLE X I X RESULTS  OF  REGRESSION ANALYSIS  Source o f Variation  1 1 1  .3512 .0086 .0315  School Variables Pacility(P)" ' Disc(D) FD  1 1 1  .0004 .0007 .0004  1 1 1  1 1 1  .0004 .0006 .0000 .0023 .0003 .0002 .0049 .0000 .0011  3 3 3 3  .0054 .0053 .0007 .0085  Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  *P<.05  1 1 1  VOCABULARY  Cum  Var  Covariates Intelligence(I) SES ( S ) Sex(X)  Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS  FOR  ACHIEVEMENT  R^  Fobs  179.184* 4.388* 16.071*  .3928  .203 .355 .203  (6)  .4028(15)  .203 .305 .000 1.168 .152 .102 2.487 .000 .558  .4082 .4135 .4142 .4226(27)  1.020 1 .020 .119 1.446  .3939  (9)  .3967(12)  .95 1,  2 9 3  =  5  *  8  8  .95 3,  2 9 3  =  2  '  6  4  F  F  192  TABLE RESULTS  OP  REGRESSION  Source of Variation Covariates I n t e l l i g e n c e ^ ) SES ( S ) Sex(X)  Var  XX  ANALYSIS  A  R  FOR  READING  Cum  R  COMPREHENSION  Fobs  1 1 1  .3030 .0136 .0353  153.807* 6.904* 17.919*  School "Variables.; P a c i l i t y ( F ) 1 Disc(D) 1 FD 1  .0074 .0197 .0001  3.756 10.000* .051  Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  .0055 .0005 .0037 .0035 .0000 .0024 .0004 .0002 .0014  Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  3 3 3 3  .0107 .0032 .0082 .0042  *P<.05  .3791  (6)  .3968(15)  2.792 .254 1.878 1.777 .000 1.218 .203 .102 .711  .4075 .4106 .4188 .4231(27)  1.811 .541 1.387 .711  .3889  (9)  .3948(12)  .95*1,  293  =  .95 3,  293  =  F  5  2  *  '  8  8  6 4  "  TABLE-XXI RESULTS  OF  REGRESSION ANALYSIS  Source o f Variation  Var  A  R 2  FOR  Cum  MATHEMATICS.; C O N C E P T S  R  Fobs  2  Covariates Intelligence(l) SES(S) Sex(X)  1 1  i3369 .0008 .0201  198.324* .432 10.865*  School" Variables F a c i l i t y ( F ) Disc(D) FD  1 1 1  .0181 .0112 .0134  9.784* 6.054* 7.243*  1'' 1 1 1  _ .  1  Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS  1 1  .0000 .0000 .0001 .0031 .0003 .0001 .0000 .0037 .0005  Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  3 3 3 3  .0007 .0076 .0085 .0044  *P<.05  1 1 1  .4307  (6)  .4383(15)  .000 .000 .054 1.676 .162 .054 .000 2.000 .270  .4391 .4467 .4551 .4594(27)  .126 1.369 1.532 .793  .4308  (9)  .4342(12)  F  .95*1, F .95*3,  2 9 3  =  5  ,  8  8  2 9 3  =  2  ,  6  4  TABLE XXII" RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR MATHEMATICS PROBLEM . • " SOLVING Source o f Variation Covariates Intelligence(I) SES(S)  Sex(x) School Variables F a c i l i t y ( F ) Disc(D) FD Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D: SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  *P<.05  Var  A*  p  2  Cum  R^  Fobs  1  .1661 .0006 .0179  64.380* .233 6.938*  1 1  .0099 v0045 .0005  3.837 1.744 .194  1 1 1 1 1  1 1  .0005 .0010 .0036 .0085 .0002 .0003 .0000 .0000 .0037  3 3 3 3  .0025 .0096 .0064 .0037  1 1  1  1  1  .1994  (6)  .2172(15)  .194 .388 1.395 3.295 .078 .116 .000 .000 1.434  .2197 .2293 .2389 .2395(27)  .323 1.240 .827 .478  .2045 (9) .2135(12)  F  .95*1, . 9 5 3 , 293 F  =  2  '  6 4  TABLE RESULTS  OF  REGRESSION  Source o f Variation  Var  XXIII  ANALYSIS  A  p R  FOR  PHYSICAL  Cum  o R^  ABILITY  Fobs.  Covariates Intelligence(I) SES(S) Sex(X)  1 1 1  .0036 .0002 .0978  1.268 .070 34.437*  School": V a r i a b l e s F a c i l i t y ( F ) Disc(D) FD  1 1 1  .0002 .0064 .0072  .070 2.254 2.535  Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  .0010 .0073 .0010 .0011 .0000 .0000 .0041 .0001 .0001  Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  3 3 3 3  .0208 .0064 .0013 .0107  *p<.05  .1153  (6)  .1301(15)  .352 2.570 .352 .387 .000 .000 1.444 .035 .035  .1508 .1573 .1586 .1693(27)  2.441 .751 .153 1.256  .1246  (9)  .1258(12)  F .95*1,  293  =  5  '  8  8  F .95*3,  293  =  2  '  6  4  TABLE RESULTS  OF  REGRESSION  Source o f Variation Covariates Intelligence(I) SES(S) Sex(X)  Var  1 1 1  1  Disc(D) FD Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  *p<.05  1 1  1  ANALYSIS" FOR  A  1 1  R^  Fobs  .0001 .0010 .0088  .031 .314 2.767  .0020 .0017 .0128 .0075  1  Cum  .377 1.384 2.233  3 3 3 3  1 1  APPEARANCE  .0012 .0044 .0071  1  1  ATTRACTIVE  p R  .0045 .0001 .0033 .0012 .0020 .0002 .0001 .0032 .0082  1  XXIV  .0226  (6)  .0454(15)  1.415 .031 1.038 .377 .629 .063 .031 1.006 2.579  .0474 .0490 .0619 .0694(27)  .210 .178 1.342 .786  .0306  (9)  .0340(12)  .95 1,  2 9 3  =  5  '  8  8  F .95*3,  2 9 3  =  2  ,  6  4  F  197  TABLE RESULTS  OP  Source o f Variation  XXV  REGRESSION ANALYSIS ABILITY  Var  AR  FOR  2  Cum  CONVERGENT  R  2  MENTAL  Fobs  Covariates Intelligence(I) SES(S) Sex(X)  1 1 1  .0.1;16 .0000 .0033  3.766 .000 1.071  School Variables Facility(P) Disc(D) PD  1 1 1  .0018 .0006 .018k  .58k .195 5.97k*  Interactions FX DX FDX IP ID IPD PS DS FDS  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  .0001 .0015 .0029 .0003 .0011 .0080 .0022 .0015 .001k  Higher Level Interactions P,D:IX P,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  3 3 3 3  .0168 .019k .0050 .0015  *P<.05  .0357  (6)  .05k6d5)  .032 • k87 .9k2 .097 .356 2.597 .711+ .k87 .k55  .0713 .0907 .0958 .0972(27)  1.818 2.100 .5k1 .162  .0k01  (9)  .0k95d2)  . 9 5 1 , 293 ~ F  .95 3, F  293  =  3  2  ,  8  8  '  6  k  - ' ., RESULTS  OF  REGRESSION  Source o f Variation Covariates Intelligence(I) SES(S) Sex(X) School Variables Faci'lity(F) Disc(D) FD Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  *p<.05  TABLE ANALYSIS SAME S E X  XXVI FOR  SOCIAL  RELATIONS  WITH  o  Var  1 1 1  1 1 1  Cum  .093 .436 1.931  .0014 .0000 .0056  .436 .000 1.745  1 1 1 1  3 3 3 3  .0062 .0080 .0096 .0079  1 1  Fobs  .0003 .0014 .0062  .0013 .0024 .0005 .0023 .0010 .0011 .0002 .0006 .0041  1  1 1  R^  .0149  .0191  (6)  .405 .748 .156 .717 .312 .343 .062 .187 1.277  (9)  .0235(12)  .0284(15)  .0346 .0426 .0521 .0600(27)  .95 1, F  .95 3, F  .644 .831 • .997 .820  293  293  3.88  =  =  2  '  6  4  TABLE RESULTS  OF  Source of Variation  REGRESSION  Var  A  XXVII  ANALYSIS  R  FOR  SOCIAL  Cum  R^  VIRTUES  Fobs  Covariates I n t e l l i g e n c e ^ ) SES(S) Sex(X)  1 1 1  .0026 .0019 .0104  .870 .635 3.478  School Variables F a c i l i t y ( F ) Disc(D) FD  1 1 1  .0046 .0000 .0323  1.538 .000 10.803*  Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  .0002 .0009 .0011 .0055 .0008 .0077 .0031 .0000 .0061  .0774(15)  .067 .301 .368 1.839 .268 2.575 1.037 .000 2.040  Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  3 3 3 3  .0072 .0208 .0096 .0090  .0846 .1054 . 1150 .1241(27)  .803 2.319 1.070 1.003  *P<.05  .0519  .0541  (6)  (9)  .0681(12)  F .95*1,  293  =  .95 3,  293  =  F  5  2  ,  8  8  *  6  4  200  TABLE RESULTS  OF  Source o f Variation Covariates Intelligence(I) SES(S) Sex(X)  XXVIII  REGRESSION A N A L Y S I S FOR ABILITY  Var  AR  2  Cum  DIVERGENT  R  2  MENTAL  Fobs  1 1 1  .0049 .0000 .0030  1.617 .000 .990  Disc(D) FD  1 1 1  .0000 .0008 .0101  .000 .264 3.333  Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  .0099 .0025 .0011 .0026 .0006 .0100 .0103 .0001 .0027  .0586(15)  3.267 .825 .363 .858 .198 3.300 3.399 .033 .891  Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  3 3 3 3  .0095 .0131 .0202 .0095  .0682 .0812 .1015 .1109(27)  1.045 1.441 2.222 1.045  te%ifitjt^ " a,,le8  *P<.05  .0189  .0323  (6)  (9)  .0455(12)  .95 1,  293  F .95*3,  293  F  =  5  "  ,  2  -  8  8  6  4  -TABLE RESULTS  OF  Source o f Variation  REGRESSION  Var  Covariates I n t e l l i g e n c e ^ ) SES(S) Sex(X)  1  1 1  School V a r i a b l e s . F a c i l i t y ( F ) Disc(D) FD Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  *P<.05  1 1  1  ;  1 1 1 1 1 1 1  ANALYSIS  p  A*  FOR  Cum  R  WORK  HABITS  p Fobs  .0092 .0006 .0293  3.056 .199 9.734*  .0038 .0002 .0092  1.262 .066 3.056  1  .0004 .0000 .0004 .0011 .0001 .0026 .0033 .0021 .0001  3 3 3 3  .0148 .0285 .0056 .0074  1  XXIX  .0523  (6)  .0623(150  .133 .000 .133 .365 .033 .864 1.096 .698 .033  .0772 .1057 .1112 .1186(27)  1.639 3.156* .620 .819  .0532  (9)  .0569(12)  .95  F  1,  .95 3, F  293  293  3  =  =  2  '  ,  8  6  8  4  202  TABLE RESULTS  OF  Source o f Variation Covariates Intelligence(I) SES(S) Sex(X) School Variables F a c i l i t y ( F ) Disc(D) FD Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  *p<.05  REGRESSION  Var  XXX  ANALYSIS  AR  FOR  p  HAPPY  QUALITIES  p  Cum  R^  Fobs  1  .0002 .0036 .0004  .064 1.146 .127  1 1 1  .0000 .0007 .0063  .000 .223 2.006  1 1  .0000 .0022 .0034 .0019 .0011 .0033  .0230(12)  1  .0004 .0065  .0358(15)  3 3 3 3  .0056 .0205 .0016 .0154  1  1  1  1 1 1 1 1  .0111  .0167  (6)  (9)  .000 .701 1.083 .. i 6 0 5 .350 1.051  1.879  .0059  .127 2.070  .594  .0415 .0620 .0623  2.176 .170 1.635  .0790(27) F .95*1, F  .95*3,  293 293  = =  5.88 2  * " 64  TABLE RESULTS  OF  REGRESSION  Source of Variation Covariates Intelligence(l) SES(S) Sex(X) S eho o 1 Variables F a c i l i t y ( F ) Disc(D) FD Interactions FX DX FDX IF ID IFD FS DS FDS Higher Level Interactions F,D:IX F,D:SX F,D:SI F,D:SIX  *p<.05  Var  1  1 1  1 1  1 1  ANALYSIS  A*  SCHOOL  SUBJECTS  Cum  R^  Fobs  .0112 .0028 .0097  3.556 .888 3.079  .0147 .0000 .0092  4.666* .000 2.921  1 1 1  3 3 3 3:  .0051 .0110 .0085 .0018  1 1 1 1  FOR  Q 2  .0004 .0000 .0005 .0000 .0001 .0005 .0007 .0002 .0016  1  XXXI  .0476  (6)  .0517(15)  .127 .000 .159 .000 .032 .159 .222 .063 .508  .0568 .0677 .0762 .0779(27)  .540 1.164 .899 .190  .0485  (9)  .0491(12)  F .95*1,  293  .95 3,  293  F  =  "  5  ,  8  8  2  ,  6  4  APPENDIX TABLE X X X I I :  G  INTERCORRELATIONS  AMONG  COVARIATES  205  TABLE  XXXII  INTERCORRELATIONS  AMONG  Variable  1.  IQ  (I)  2.  SES  (S)  3.  SEX  (X)  1  2  .29  -.13  -.01  COVARIATES  3  206  APPENDIX TABLE  XXXIII: ..  H  I N T E R C O R R E L A T I O N S AMONG AND D E P E N D E N T . M E A S U R E S  COVARIATES . .  TABLE INTERCORRELATIONS  Variable  1.  IQ(I)  CTBS  1  2  .59  .55  AMONG  XXXIII  COVARIATES  AND  DEPENDENT  a  MEASURES  SSCT  b  4  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  .61  .41  .06"-  .03  .11  .02  -.05  .07  .10  .01  .11  3  2.  SES(S)  .26  .27  .20  .14  .03  -.05  .03  .04  .03  .02  .01  .06  -.02  3.  SEX(X)  .10  .12  .06  .08  -.32  -.09  .04  -.08  .11  -.06  .16  .02  .08  a  CTBS  refers  t o the Canadian  SSCT  refers  to the Sears  Tests  of Basic  Self-Concept  S k i l l s  Inventory  ro o  208  APPENDIX  I  U N A D J U S T E D AND A D J U S T E D MEANS FOR THE T H I R T E E N D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S A C C O R D I N G TO P R O G R A M , TO F A C I L I T Y , A N D TO P R O GRAM AND FACILITY  209 TABLE  XXXIV  UNADJUSTED AND ADJUSTED MEANS FOR THE THIRTEEN DEPENDENT V A R I A B L E S ACCORDING TO PROGRAM OR F A C I L I T Y  Program  Facility  Open  Nonopen  Open  Nonopen  UN ADJ  20.10 19.53  19.30 19.83  20.05 19.53  19.36 19.79  CTBS 2  UN ADJ  29.34 28.31  30.39 31.34  31.72 30.83  28.27 29.05  CTBS 3  UN ADJ  17.35 17.27  17.48 18.06  17.04 16.50  17.74 18.22  CTBS 4  UN ADJ  12.88 12.42  12.87 13.31  12.56 12.16  13.16  SSCT  UN ADJ  14.37 14.44  15.09 15.03  14.79 14.79  14.70 14.71  SSCT 2  UN ADJ  13.33 13.35  13.63 13.61  13.43 13.44  13.53 13.52  SSCT 3  UN ADJ  27.10 26.97  26.61  26.50  27.21 27.12  26.42 26.50  SSCT 4  UN ADJ  13.80 ' 13.81  13.84 13.83  13.69  13.68  13.94 13.95  SSCT 5  UN ADJ  13.58 13.58  13.60 13.60  13.84 13.85  13.37 13.36  SSCT 6  UN ADJ  27.23 27.22  26.81 26.83  27.08 27.06  26.95 26.99  SSCT 7  UN ADJ  13.05 1.2.96  12.76 12.84  13.21 13.16  12.63 12.67  SSCT 8  UN ADJ  14.57  14.56  14.36 14.38  14.47 14.46  14.46 14.47  SSCT 9  UN ADJ  28.03 27.94  27.79 27.88  28.73 28.67  27.19 27.24  SSCT TOTAL  UN ADJ  165.07 164.81  164.37 164.62  166.45  163.19 163.40  CTBS  1  1  '  166.20  * CTBS r e f e r s t o t h e C a n a d i a n T e s t s o f B a s i c SSCT r e f e r s t o t h e S e a r s S e l f - C o n c e p t I n v e n t o r y  13.50  Skills,  and  TABLE  XXXV  U N A D J U S T E D AND A D J U S T E D MEANS FOR V A R I A B L E S A C C O R D I N G TO P R O G R A M  THE AND  THIRTEEN FACILITY  DEPENDENT  Facility-  Open  Open  Nonopen  Nonopen  Program  Open  Nonopen  Open  Nonopen  CTBS  1  UN ADJ  20.13 19.27  19.97 19.82  CTBS  2  UN ADJ  30.96 29.38  32.42 32.17  27.94 27.39  28.58 30.61  CTBS  3  UN ADJ  17.51 16.60  16.60 16.40  17.21 16.84  18.25 19.53  UN ADJ  12.58 1 1 . 8 6  12.56 12.45  13.13 12.90  13.15 14.07  CTBS  4  . 20.07 19.76  18.69 19.83  SSCT  1  UN ADJ  14.00 14.13  15.53 15.40  14.70 14.70  14.71  SSCT  2  UN ADJ  12.82 12.88  13.99 13.95  13.77 13.76  13.31 13.30  SSCT  3  UN ADJ  26.43 26.25  27.92 27.92  27.68 27.61  25.24 25.25  SSCT  4  UN ADJ  13.35 13.36  14.00 13.97  14.19 14.20  13.69 13.71  SSCT  5  UN ADJ  13.17 13.14  14.46 14.51  13.94 13.96  12.84 12.81  SSCT  6  UN ADJ  26.53 26.52  27.59 27.53  27.84 27.82  26.20  14.71  26.11  SSCT  7  UN ADJ  12.96 12.81  13.45 13.49  13.13 13.09  12.15 12.27  SSCT  8  UN ADJ  14.29 14.26  14.64 14.64  14.82 14.82  14.11  UN ADJ  28.22 28.08  29.19 29.22  27.87 27.81  26.55 26.70  UN ADJ  161.76 161.41  170.77 170.63  167.94 167.76  158.70 159.29  SSCT  SSCT TOTAL  SSCT  9  * CTBS r e f e r s t o t h e C a n a d i a n T e s t s o f B a s i c refers to the Sears Self-Concept Inventory  14.14  S k i l l s ,  and  

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.831.1-0055683/manifest

Comment

Related Items