Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The classification of students to facilitate decisions on instruction directed toward affective goals Page, Gordon G. 1974

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A2 P33_8.pdf [ 12.55MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055684.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055684-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055684-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055684-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055684-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055684-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055684-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055684-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055684.ris

Full Text

THE CLASSIFICATION OF STUDENTS TO FACILITATE DECISIONS ON INSTRUCTION DIRECTED TOWARD AFFECTIVE GOALS  by  GORDON G. PAGE B.Sc, University of V i c t o r i a ,  1964  M.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n the F a c u l t y of EDUCATION  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o t h e required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. September, 1974  In  presenting  this  an a d v a n c e d  degree  the  shall  I  Library  further  for  scholarly  by h i s of  agree  this  thesis  in p a r t i a l  fulfilment  of  at  University  of  Columbia,  the  make  it  that permission  p u r p o s e s may  representatives. thesis  freely  for  available  is  financial  gain  shall  of  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a  by  the  Columbia  not  requirements  reference copying of  I  agree  and  copying or  be a l l o w e d  for  that  study.  this  thesis  Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t  understood that  written permission.  Department  for  for extensive  be g r a n t e d  It  British  the  or  publication  without  my  Co-Chairmen: W. B. B o l d t , Ph.D. T. D. M. McKie, Ph.D.  ABSTRACT  Fundamentally, the goals o f education are not u n l i k e the goals o f medical therapy; t h a t i s , t o f a c i l i t a t e a d e s i r e d change i n an individual.  I n medicine, the p r e r e q u i s i t e t o the s e l e c t i o n of any  t h e r a p e u t i c regime i s the d i a g n o s t i c process —  the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f  the antecedent s t a t e s o f an i n d i v i d u a l which must be taken i n t o account i n the attainment of the intended s t a t e .  The educational analogue t o  the medical d i a g n o s t i c process i s the process o f i d e n t i f y i n g the antecedent knowledge, s k i l l s , values o r a t t i t u d e s possessed by students e n t e r i n g a course which may i n f l u e n c e the process of a t t a i n i n g , or the attainment o f , the course goals.  The educational analogue of the  therapeutic regime are the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s which take the ante-, cedent c o n d i t i o n s i n t o account and which are d i r e c t e d at the f u l f i l l m e n t o f course goals.  I n education however, f e a s i b l e methods have hot been  i d e n t i f i e d f o r t a k i n g these antecedent c o n d i t i o n s i n t o account.  In  s e l e c t i n g teaching s t r a t e g i e s i n most classroom s i t u a t i o n s , i t i s not p r a c t i c a l t o take these c o n d i t i o n s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n on an i n d i v i d u a l basis.  Nor i s i t u s e f u l t o consider c l a s s averages on these v a r i a b l e s ,  since students vary so widely i n terms of them.  This study, working i n  the context o f science education, and d e a l i n g w i t h a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s , developed a procedure f o r p r o v i d i n g knowledge of antecedent a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s i n a form p e r m i t t i n g t h e i r e f f e c t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n i n the process of s e l e c t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s .  More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the purpose  of t h i s study was t o develop a t h e o r e t i c a l l y based and methodologically  iii  sound systematic procedure ( g e n e r i c a l l y "the Procedure") f o r (1) i d e n t i f y i n g , d e s c r i b i n g , and r e p o r t i n g the degree o f pro-ness o r con-ness of a f f e c t i v e antecedents deemed t o be important t o science i n s t r u c t i o n and (2) i d e n t i f y i n g t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s which take these antecedent conditions i n t o account and which are d i r e c t e d toward science teaching outcomes i n the a f f e c t i v e domain.  • .'  .  '  The general approach taken by the Procedure i s t o i d e n t i f y and describe subgroups o f students w i t h i n a c l a s s i n terms o f s i m i l a r sets of antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses t o objects which r e f l e c t pro-ness or con-ness toward the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s inherent i n the a f f e c t i v e goals of a course.  I n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s f o r these subgroups can then be  s e l e c t e d o r provide a r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r changing those antecedent r a t i n g s which are most incongruent w i t h the d e s i r e d a f f e c t i v e r e f l e c t e d i n the a f f e c t i v e goals.  ratings  The a f f e c t i v e goals are i d e n t i f i e d  w i t h i n a c l e a r and accurate statement o f the r a t i o n a l e f o r a course. Measurements o f the degree o f students' pro-ness o r con-ness on the a f f e c t i v e responses o f concern are obtained through the use o f the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l technique. The Q-analysis technique, a technique f o r c a t e g o r i z i n g people, i s employed t o i d e n t i f y the subgroups o f students.  .  The educational value o f the Procedure r e s t s upon i t s a b i l i t y t o meet an important educational need i n a p r a c t i c a l way.— s p e c i f i c a l l y i t s a b i l i t y t o provide a c l e a r d e s c r i p t i o n o f a f f e c t i v e antecedents i n a form p e r m i t t i n g t h e i r e f f e c t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n i n the process o f i d e n t i f y i n g t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s d i r e c t e d toward the f u l f i l l m e n t o f a f f e c t i v e goals.  I n t h i s study, the r e s u l t s o f the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Procedure iv  t o an i n t r o d u c t o r y u n i v e r s i t y physics course supported the general e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f each component o f the Procedure i n meeting t h i s need.  There i s concern however (1) that a d d i t i o n a l .  data need t o be gathered supporting the v a l i d i t y o f the Procedure, and (2) that the time and monetary demands associated w i t h the Qa n a l y s i s and Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l techniques might l i m i t the f e a s i b i l i t y o f the Procedure i n some educational  settings.  Recommendations and g u i d e l i n e s regarding future a p p l i c a t i o n s of the Procedure are provided, i n c l u d i n g recommendations  regarding  v a l i d i t y studies and the use o f l e s s c o s t l y a l t e r n a t i v e s t o the SD and Q-analysis components.  v  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page  ABSTRACT . .  i i i  LIST OF TABLES  • viii  LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS  '. .  ACKHO^TJBDGEMEKTS  ix xi  CHAPTER I.  1  INTRODUCTION The General Problem and i t s Context J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f the Problem . Framework The S p e c i f i c Problem The Organization o f t h i s Report  II.  THE PROCEDURE Overview A Construct o f A f f e c t A T h e o r e t i c a l P r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e Procedure Terminology . . • Summary  III.  . .  1 2 3 5 6  .  7  ....  AN APPLICATION OF THE PROCEDURE  38  Introduction P l a n o f t h i s Chapter The Development o f the Course R a t i o n a l e . . . . . . The Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l . Q-Analysis o f the P r o f i l e s o f A f f e c t i v e Scores . . . The S e l e c t i o n o f S t r a t e g i e s .IV.  AN EVALUATION OF THE PROCEDURE Overview o f the Chapter C r i t e r i a f o r E v a l u a t i n g the Procedure An E v a l u a t i o n o f the Procedure E v a l u a t i o n Summary  vi  7 8 12 36 36  38 39 39 42 6l 77 96  . . .  96 97 98 118  Page CHAPTER V.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary . . . . . . . . Recommendations  121 121 122  Conclusions FOOTNOTES  . .  129 ,  130  BIBLIOGRAPHY  138  APPENDIX A. THE PHYSICS 110 COURSE RATIONALE B. THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL INSTRUMENT.  l 4 l 153  C. THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE FACTOR STRUCTURES FOR GROUP A AND GROUP B  l 6 l  D. MOVES IN EVALUATIVE VENTURES  188  E. DOCUMENTATION OF THE PROFILE ANALYSIS PROGRAM F. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF SCORES ON " PROFILES AND THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FACTORS IDENTIFIED THROUGH Q-ANALYSIS G. AN OUTLINE OF THE PROCEDURE . . . H. CROSS VALIDATION STUDY OF THE "TYPES" OF STUDENTS IDENTIFIED THROUGH Q-ANALYSIS  193  I. THE RELEVANCE OF AFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO THE AFFECTIVE GOALS OF THE COURSE"  vii  224 226 229 235  LIST OP TABLES Page TABLE 1  Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Concepts and Scales . . . . . . .  2  Percentage o f T o t a l Score Variance Accounted f o r by Each P r i n c i p l e Component and Varimax Scale Factor o f the Object "Physics".  18  53  .  3 . Percentage o f T o t a l Score Variance Accounted f o r by Each Varimax Factor o f Each Object 4  Varimax F a c t o r Structure o f A f f e c t i v e Ratings  5  Eigenvalues o f the C o r r e l a t i o n and S i m i l a r i t y Matrices  6  57 '  66  A f f e c t i v e V a r i a b l e Scores on the Modal Patterns  7  54  68  P r i n t e d Output o f the P r o f i l e A n a l y s i s Computer Program  viii  200  LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page ILLUSTRATION 1  Stake's Framework o f the I n s t r u c t i o n a l Process . . . .  4  2  F i s h b e i n ' s C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f the Intervening V a r i a b l e s Between a'Stimulus and Responses t o the Stimulus on a Set o f B i p o l a r Measurement Scales .  10  t 3 4  :;. 5 6a  Conventional Data M a t r i x o f Test Scores . . . . . . . An example o f the A f f e c t i v e Ratings and Required I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s i d e n t i f i e d by a Modal P a t t e r n  2.0  Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Data Matrices  49  34  . . . . . . . .  Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 1 and Group 9  6b  :  Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 2 and Group 10  6c  70  Modal Patterns. Representing Students i n  Group 3 and Group 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6d  .  .  72  Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 5 and Group 13  6f  73  Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 6 and Group 14  6g  74  Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 7 and Group 15  6h  •_  75  Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 8 and Group 16  7a  71  Modal Patterns Representing Students i n  Group 4 and Group 12 . . . . . . . 6e  69  ,  The Negative. A f f e c t i v e Ratings and Required I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s i d e n t i f i e d by Modal Pattern 1  ix  76  79  Page ILLUSTRATION 7b  8 9  The Negative A f f e c t i v e Ratings and Required I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s i d e n t i f i e d by Modal Pattern 9  80  Procedure f o r I d e n t i f y i n g the A f f e c t i v e Responses o f Concern The R e l a t i o n s h i p between Coombs and Meux's Teaching Function and F i s h b e i n ' s Theory o f the Development o f A f f e c t i v e Responses  x  100  ...  118  ACKNO\€£DGMENTS  The w r i t e r wishes t o express h i s s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e t o h i s f a m i l y , h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n committee, and h i s t y p i s t s f o r the p a t i e n c e they have d i s p l a y e d and the s a c r i f i c e s they have made d u r i n g the course o f t h i s study. S p e c i a l acknowledgment i s g i v e n t o Dr. Walter B o l d t and Dr. Douglas McKie f o r t h e p e r s o n a l encouragement and guidance they gave t o me and t o the study, and t o Dr. Walter Westphal f o r h i s v i t a l r o l e as the p h y s i c s i n s t r u c t o r i n and impetus behind t h i s study.  xi  CHAPTER I TJNTRODUCTION  1.1 The General Problem and I t s Context Education i s a p r o f e s s i o n which i s unique i n the problems o f p r a c t i c e t h a t i t encounters.  The educational philosopher, Broudy, sees  these problems as a r i s i n g out o f f o u r d i s t i n c t i v e educational needs: the formulation and j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f (1) educational p o l i c y , (2) curriculum design, (3) schemes o f o r g a n i z a t i o n and support, and (4) s t r a t e g i e s o f teaching and l e a r n i n g .  I n d e a l i n g w i t h these problems, the p r o f e s s i o n a l  educator, a>s viewed by Broudy, acquires d i r e c t i o n from two sources: (1) personal experience, and (2) a knowledge o f the broad contexts i n which classroom problems occur: philosophy, psychology, s o c i o l o g y , and h i s t o r y .  x  W i t h i n Broudy's framework, t h e study t o be presented I s one o f formulati n g and j u s t i f y i n g s t r a t e g i e s o f teaching and l e a r n i n g , and w i l l be approached from a predominantly  p s y c h o l o g i c a l point, o f view.  The general problem o f t h i s study i s t o develop a procedure which provides knowledge o f the a f f e c t students may have f o r o r against aspects o f teaching and l e a r n i n g science as a b a s i s f o r s e l e c t i n g teaching s t r a t egies d i r e c t e d toward the achievement o f goals i n the a f f e c t i v e domain. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the general problem i s twofold: (1) t o develop a procedure f o r i d e n t i f y i n g , d e s c r i b i n g , and r e p o r t i n g observations on the degree o f pro-ness o r con-ness o f a f f e c t i v e antecedents' deemed t o be i n p o r t a n t t o science i n s t r u c t i o n ; and (2) t o i d e n t i f y t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s which take these antecedent c o n d i t i o n s i n t o account and which are d i r e c t e d  1  toward science teaching outcomes i n the a f f e c t i v e domain. While the procedures described i n t h i s study are developed w i t h i n the context o f science education, and deal only w i t h goals i n the a f f e c t i v e domain, i t i s expected t h a t the method w i l l be q u i t e a p p l i c a b l e across subject areas and, i n p a r t , t o c o g n i t i v e goals as w e l l .  1.2 J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f the ProblemThere e x i s t many viewpoints on the nature o f science and science teaching w i t h i n which the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the problem can be presented. For example, i n Kuhn's view o f s c i e n c e , science teaching i s seen, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , as a process o f f a c i l i t a t i n g transformations o f modes o f observing and t h i n k i n g about n a t u r a l phenomena, a process o f inducing something a k i n t o s h i f t s i n G e s t a l t i n the nature o f the student's perception o f n a t u r a l phenomena, o r i n Kuhnian terminology, a process o f 2  9  inducing paradigm s h i f t s . '  Evidence suggests that t h i s process o f  perceptual change o r l e a r n i n g i s dependent upon a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s i n 4 f l u e n c i n g the student.  I t t h e r e f o r e seems important f o r the teacher,  i n s e l e c t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s , t o take i n t o account how students f e e l about important aspects o f the course such as the nature o f s c i e n c e , the science i n s t r u c t o r ; and science i n s t r u c t i o n .  Moreover, i f one accepts  (1) Fishbein's p o s i t i o n that c o g n i t i v e l e a r n i n g s are accompanied by the automatic a c q u i s i t i o n o f a f f e c t i v e responses toward the c o g n i t i v e l e a r n ings,  and (2) Kuhn's p o s i t i o n that the f u l f i l l m e n t o f educational goals  f o r a science course, o r the a c q u i s i t i o n o f s c i e n t i f i c paradigms, i s dependent on the l e a r n i n g o f appropriate a f f e c t i v e behavior,^ then the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f appropriate teaching s t r a t e g i e s t o achieve 2  these  a f f e c t i v e responses poses a problem deemed worthy o f serious i n v e s t i g a t i o n . S e l e c t i n g teaching s t r a t e g i e s d i r e c t e d toward the achievement o f a f f e c t i v e g o a l s , which take i n t o account the amount o f a f f e c t f o r o r against f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o the attainment, o f these g o a l s , r e q u i r e s a considerable amount o f s u b j e c t i v e judgment on the part o f the i n s t r u c t o r . In the p a s t , a systematic procedure .for meeting t h i s problem has not been a v a i l a b l e t o classroom teachers.  The procedure developed i n t h i s study  purports t o address t h i s problem through the i n t e g r a t i o n o f a n a l y t i c a l , psychometric, and s t a t i s t i c a l resources which i n the past have been used at best t o probe only d i s c r e t e elements o f the problem.  1.3 Framework o f the Study Stake has proposed a framework f o r the i n s t r u c t i o n a l process which provides h e l p f u l g u i d e l i n e s f o r the conceptual development o f the procedure presented i n t h i s study. H i s general framework, depicted i n Pig.  1, a s s i s t s the user i n i n t e g r a t i n g v a r i e d educational and develop-  mental a c t i v i t i e s , o f t e n c a r r i e d out piecemeal, so as t o determine (1) the  e f f e c t s o f various f a c t o r s on the outcomes o f i n s t r u c t i o n and (2) the  m e r i t s , t o those concerned, o f many aspects o f the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program.  3  1  INTENTS  OBSERVATIONS  ANTECiDENTS  RATIONALE t  TRANSA -TIONS  I  OUTO)MES  •>  DESCRIPTION MATRIX Fig. 1.—Stake's Framework of the Instructional Process  Within Stake's framework the procedure described i n t h i s study s  purports to provide a systematic means f o r ( 1 ) developing a course rationale, ( 2 ) identifying the intended (affective) outcomes within the rationale, ( 3 ) identifying and measuring important affective antecedent responses (observed antecedents) that may influence the attainment of the intended outcomes,, and ( 4 ) reporting these observed antecedents i n such a way that they can be used as a basis upon which intended transactions , aimed at f u l f i l l i n g the intended outcomes, can be based. The procedure therefore w i l l provide a more systematic means of ( 1 ) establ i s h i n g the " l o g i c a l contingencies" between the intended transactions and the intended outcomes and ( 2 ) identifying the observed antecedents used to guide the selection of the intended transactions. 7 4  1 . 4 The S p e c i f i c Problem The general problem o f t h i s study can be d e l i n e a t e d i n a number o f steps t o s p e c i f i c problems o r subproblems.  STEP 1 .  A CONSTRUCT OF AFFECT  Subproblem 1  •  '  "  S e l e c t , d e s c r i b e , and j u s t i f y the choice o f a t h e o r e t i c a l construct o f a f f e c t toward o r against an o b j e c t . STEP 2.  A THEORETICAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROCEDURE  Subproblem 1 S e l e c t and describe systematic procedures f o r i d e n t i f y i n g v a r i a b l e s t o ward which the a f f e c t i v e responses acquired i n the past appear important f o r the purpose o f planning i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s . Subproblem 2 S e l e c t , d e s c r i b e , and j u s t i f y the choice o f a psychometric technique f o r o b t a i n i n g observations on the antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses. Subproblem 3 S e l e c t , d e s c r i b e , and j u s t i f y the choice o f s t a t i s t i c a l techniques and c r i t e r i a f o r c l a s s i f y i n g students i n terms o f t h e i r antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses. Subproblem 4 S e l e c t and describe t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n s and experimental f i n d i n g s pert i n e n t t o the s e l e c t i o n of teaching s t r a t e g i e s which (1) appear appropr i a t e f o r students c l a s s i f i e d i n the d i f f e r e n t categories i n terms o f t h e i r antecedent a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s , and (2) appear u s e f u l i n teaching d i r e c t e d toward a f f e c t i v e goals. -  As a u n i t , the procedures, techniques, and u n d e r l y i n g t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n s o u t l i n e d i n t h i s step s h a l l henceforth be r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as the "Procedure". STEP 3-  -IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROCEDURE.  Subproblem 1 I l l u s t r a t e an a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Procedure t o a science classroom s i t u a t i o n .  5  STEP 4.  EVALUATION OP THE PROCEDURE  Subproblem 1 Examine the l i m i t a t i o n s o f the psychometric and s t a t i s t i c a l aspects o f the Procedure as evidenced i n STEP 3Subproblem 2 Evaluate the usefulness o f the Procedure t o the problem o f d e c i d i n g among i n s t r u c t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r given a f f e c t i v e goals. T h i s w i l l be done by determining the extent t o which educators can u t i l i z e the d e s c r i p t i o n s of the types o f students provided i n STEP 3 f o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g among the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s developed i n STEP 3 on the b a s i s o f t h e i r appropr i a t e n e s s t o these types, I t i s the t h e s i s o f t h i s study t h a t the Procedure w i l l a s s i s t i n establ i s h i n g a more systematic b a s i s f o r meeting the problem o f i d e n t i f y i n g teaching s t r a t e g i e s d i r e c t e d toward the f u l f i l l m e n t o f a f f e c t i v e goals.  1.5 The O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h i s Report The o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h i s report w i l l c l o s e l y r e f l e c t the order and content o f the stages o u t l i n i n g t h e s p e c i f i c problem.  Chapter I I  w i l l be devoted t o STEP 1 and STEP 2, a t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n o f the Procedure.  STEP 3  i n Chapter I I I .  5  the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Procedure, w i l l be r e p o r t e d  Chapter IV w i l l evaluate the Procedure, as o u t l i n e d i n  STEP 4, and Chapter V w i l l present a summary and t h e conclusions o f t h i s study.  The reader i s r e f e r r e d t o Appendix G f o r a p o i n t form overview  of the Procedure.  6  CHAPTER I I THE PROCEDURE  This chapter w i l l present a d e s c r i p t i o n o f , and j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the s e l e c t i o n o f the p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s , a n a l y t i c a l , psychometric, and s t a t i s t i c a l techniques, and underlying t h e o r i e s that are embodied i n the Procedure.  The d i s c u s s i o n t o be presented w i l l e x p l i c a t e the  subproblems o f STEP 1 and STEP 2 i n the statement of the s p e c i f i c problem i n Chapter I .  2.1 Overview P a r t s o f the Procedure were developed w i t h i n the p s y c h o l o g i c a l context o f Fishbein's mediation theory o f l e a r n i n g , adapting Fishbein's multidimensional concept o f " a f f e c t " , h i s t h e o r e t i c a l view on changing a f f e c t , and a method o f measuring a f f e c t t h a t i s consistent w i t h h i s 8  theory. The development o f a course r a t i o n a l e , and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f intended a f f e c t i v e outcomes of a course u t i l i z e d systematic e m p i r i c a l approaches supported by S c r i v e n ,  9  Stake,  10  and T a y l o r and Maguire.  11  12 Osgood's Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l technique, and m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s 13 14 techniques suggested by Stephenson  and G u e r t i n  and d e s c r i b e a f f e c t i v e antecedent responses.  were used t o i d e n t i f y  The development o f approp-  r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s t o f u l f i l l the intended outcomes i s an e m p i r i c a l problem which derived some d i r e c t i o n from Fishbein's paradigm 15 o f a f f e c t i v e response a c q u i s i t i o n ,  and Smith and Meux's study on the  analysis of teaching s t r a t e g i e s . ^  7  2.2 STEP 1: A Construct o f A f f e c t 2.2.1  STEP 1  Subproblem 1 S e l e c t , d e s c r i b e , and j u s t i f y the choice of a t h e o r e t i c a l construct o f a f f e c t toward or against an o b j e c t . The Procedure i s i n , p a r t an a p p l i c a t i o n of a q u a n t i t a t i v e method f o r i s o l a t i n g , measuring, and d e s c r i b i n g a f f e c t i v e responses as an important antecedent t o planning i n s t r u c t i o n .  The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  the term " a f f e c t " i n t h i s context i s dependent on the p o i n t o f view or theory from which i t i s perceived.  Therefore the f u n c t i o n t o be  served  i n c l a r i f y i n g the concept " a f f e c t " as i t i s employed i n t h i s study i s t o describe the t h e o r e t i c a l framework from which i t was e x t r a c t e d . The study f i n d s i t s place i n the context o f a mediation o f • l e a r n i n g proposed by F i s h b e i n 19 Osgood,  IT  theory  l8 and b u i l t upon the work of Doob,  20 Rhine,  and others.  The theory views the a c q u i s i t i o n o f  a f f e c t i v e responses as an automatic, non-verbalized process that occurs i n conjunction w i t h concept l e a r n i n g . J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the choice o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n f o r the use of the term " a f f e c t " r e s t s on (1) the existence o f a method o f measuring a f f e c t i v e responses that i s consistent w i t h the theory and has been used s u c c e s s f u l l y i n 21 conjunction w i t h b e h a v i o r a l p r e d i c t i o n ,  and (2) the p o t e n t i a l use-  f u l n e s s o f the theory i n guiding the s e l e c t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s d i r e c t e d toward a f f e c t i v e goals and i n suggesting other questions f o r f u r t h e r e m p i r i c a l research d e a l i n g w i t h methods of changing affective  responses.  E m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s employing e i t h e r Osgood's o r F i s h b e i n ' s s i m i l a r 8  t h e o r e t i c a l views use b i p o l a r measurement s c a l e s .  Both views assume  t h a t the i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s between a'stimulus  (S) and a subject's  responses ( R y ) t o the stimulus on a set o f these b i p o l a r measurement scales are i m p l i c i t o r mediational learned responses ( r ^ ) . These -responses are assumed t o be made up o f a number o f r e a c t i o n components (r_J ^  w  h  i  c  h  s r e  s e e n  r e c i p r o c a l l y a n t a g o n i s t i c corresponding t o the  3 5  l o g i c a l l y opposite character o f the a d j e c t i v a l anchors used f o r the measurement s c a l e s .  Further, h y p o t h e t i c a l sets o f such r e a c t i o n compon-  ents are assumed t o be f u n c t i o n a l l y independent, corresponding t o the uncorrelatedness Fig.  o f the common a f f e c t i v e f a c t o r s underlying the s c a l e s .  2 depicts Fishbein's c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f the i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s  between a stimulus and responses t o the stimulus on a s e t o f b i p o l a r measurement s c a l e s .  The most s a l i e n t a f f e c t i v e f a c t o r has been i d e n t i f i e d  as e v a l u a t i v e o r a t t i t u d i n a l i n nature ( i . e . , a learned p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o respond favourably o r unfavourably t o a concept).  Two l e s s s a l i e n t ,  but dominant f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d i n many studies have been c h a r a c t e r i z e d as potency and a c t i v i t y f a c t o r s . F i s h b e i n , b u i l d i n g on Osgood's work, has developed an analogue t o the c l a s s i c a l c o n d i t i o n i n g model i n which these mediational  implicit  responses are acquired o r learned, through c o n d i t i o n i n g and mediation, as a concept i t s e l f i s learned.  F i s h b e i n uses the term "concept" t o  r e f e r t o ". . . any d i s c r i m i n a b l e aspect o f the i n d i v i d u a l ' s ' world . . . any o b j e c t , person, word, group o f words, or so on." b e l i e f as a hypothesis  He r e f e r s t o a  concerning the nature o f a concept and i t s  r e l a t i o n s h i p t o other concepts.  Fishbein's model suggests t h a t the  strength o f the learned a f f e c t i v e responses' associated w i t h a concept  9  / ll r  /?12  - S  R-  11-  / - i i  - S  12-  \  -s  // //  V nice  /  //  /  ^21  /  S  "22  21^ "22  R  :r  2  \  \  A  \  A  '•—R  Stimulus  2k  R  •r - S d n n — nl'  Reaction Components (r ) y  )  | i i i I i i i fast slow  | i i i I i i i I moving still  / n l |_  I L U  nl  i i awful  Evaluation  Activity  i i i I i i strong weak  n2 - n2-  \  i  2  \  \ nl  21  i l I  - S;  - S. 2k-  \  11111,, i n good bad  Potency •-R nl  M e d i a t i o n a l Responses (r.)  1 i , , wide  1i  , narrow  Responses on B i p o l a r A f f e c t i v e Scales Factors  F i g . 2 . — F i s h b e i n ' s C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f the Intervening V a r i a b l e s Between a Stimulus and Responses t o the Stimulus on a Set o f B i p o l a r Measurement Scales  i s determined by two f a c t o r s : (1) by the s a l i e n c y o f the b e l i e f s that the person has about the concept, and (2) by the a f f e c t i v e responses that have been associated w i t h the objects r e l a t e d t o the concept by the beliefs.  F o r example, suppose a student's s a l i e n t b e l i e f s about a  p a r t i c u l a r teacher are t h a t he i s Negro, knowledgeable, a musician, and overweight.  F i s h b e i n would p r e d i c t that the student's a f f e c t i v e  responses toward the teacher, as measured on a s e t o f b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s c a l e s , would be a l i n e a r combination (weighted sum) o f h i s a f f e c t i v e responses toward the concepts Negro, knowledgeable, m u s i c i a n , overweight. . . Thus, the responses made t o a concept by a subject on a set o f b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v a l scales are a f u n c t i o n o f the' person's :  s a l i e n t b e l i e f s about the concept (prominence o f a s s o c i a t i o n s between the concept and r e l a t e d o b j e c t s ; o p e r a t i o n a l l y the p r o b a b i l i t y o r i n p r o b a b i l i t y that a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s ) and the a f f e c t i v e responses 22 that have been associated w i t h the r e l a t e d o b j e c t s .  F i s h b e i n views  the uncorrelated f a c t o r s underlying a s e t o f a d j e c t i v a l s c a l e s as 23 d e f i n i n g the multidimensional  a f f e c t i v e meaning system o f the concept.  One o f the problems f a c i n g an i n s t r u c t o r w i t h a l a r g e number o f students i s how t o take i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r a f f e c t i v e responses i n t o account.  I t would be h e l p f u l t o the i n s t r u c t o r , t h e r e f o r e ,  t o have information about the s t r u c t u r e o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c l a s s —  the number o f d i f f e r e n t types o f students i n terms o f  c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h e i r a f f e c t i v e responses t o the concepts o f concern, and the nature o f the d i f f e r e n c e s between these types o r groups o f students.  Information o f t h i s s o r t could then be used by the i n s t r u c t o r ,  drawing on a t h e o r e t i c a l view o f l e a r n i n g , f o r planning i n s t r u c t i o n a l 11  strategies.  Fishbein's model o f concept l e a r n i n g provides a convenient  source o f ideas about how a f f e c t i v e responses t o concepts are acquired to suggest p o s s i b l e courses o f a c t i o n f o r the i n s t r u c t o r . I n S e c t i o n 2.3.2 o f t h i s chapter which discusses the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l (SD) technique, Fishbein's theory o f l e a r n i n g w i l l be o f f e r e d as a r a t i o n a l e f o r the use o f the SD.  2.3 STEP 2: A 'Theoretical P r e s e n t a t i o n o f the Procedure 2.3.1 STEP 2 Subproblem 1 S e l e c t and describe systematic procedures f o r i d e n t i f y i n g course content and i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s toward which the a f f e c t i v e responses acquired i n the past appear important f o r the purpose o f planning i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s . Assuming that the intended a f f e c t i v e outcomes o f a course are connected t o i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s and that these are i n t u r n contingent on the antecedent conditions i d e n t i f i e d , there are two l o g i c a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s t o planning teaching t a c t i c s : the f i r s t i s the d e t a i l e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f the a f f e c t i v e goals themselves; and the second i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f which a f f e c t i v e responses acquired by students p r i o r to the course are o f concern i n planning i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s d i r e c t e d toward the achievement o f these intended a f f e c t i v e goals.  Both these  problems, s p e c i f i c a t i o n of educational goals and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f r e l e vant antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses can be given d i r e c t i o n w i t h i n the context o f Stake's general framework f o r meeting the p r e c o n d i t i o n s o f 24 educational e v a l u a t i o n . Broudy p o i n t s out that educational goals can be s p e c i f i e d at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f g e n e r a l i t y ranging from statements o f high-order values, p r i n c i p l e s , o r l i f e s t y l e s t o statements o f purpose f o r s p e c i f i c 12  courses, l e s s o n s , o r episodes w i t h i n l e s s o n s . ^ The data on the student's a f f e c t i v e responses p r i o r t o t h e course, obtained by t h e Procedure, are planned t o be o f use i n the development o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s t o meet p a r t i c u l a r l e s s o n o r episode o b j e c t i v e s .  However, these o b j e c t i v e s  are but d e l i n e a t i o n s o f the more general purposes o f t h e course. Consequently,•the a f f e c t i v e - g o a l s o f most importance i n i d e n t i f y i n g the p a r t i c u l a r antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses t o be measured w i l l be those r e l a t i n g t o the course as a u n i t .  I n Stake's fraiuework, these  goals are embodied w i t h i n the course r a t i o n a l e , the p h i l o s o p h i c background and general purposes of the program.  The purposes s t a t e d w i t h i n the r a t i o n a l e can best be considered a c o l l e c t i o n o f p o l i c y statements and d i r e c t i v e s .  The p o l i c y statements  are formulated by the course i n s t r u c t o r , and j u s t i f i e d on the b a s i s o f a s e t o f p r i n c i p l e s that he adheres t o .  The d i r e c t i v e s reported i n a  r a t i o n a l e are based upon p o l i c i e s o f other people, and are e i t h e r d e r i v e d from persons i n more general p o s i t i o n s o f a u t h o r i t y , o r from persons delegated by the course i n s t r u c t o r t o reach a p o l i c y .  For example, a  more general a u t h o r i t y would be a funding agency which sets out some g u i d e l i n e s t o which a new c u r r i c u l u m must adhere before i t acknowledges i t s f i n a n c i a l support.  A group delegated a u t h o r i t y would be physics  students who were asked t o decide on whether they wished a one hour problem t u t o r i a l every week, o r every other week,  whatever the a u t h o r i t y ,  the course i n s t r u c t o r must stay w i t h i n the l i m i t s o f i t s d i r e c t i v e s . Stake notes that i t i s o f t e n an u n f u l f i l l e d . r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f i n s t r u c t o r s t o i d e n t i f y and describe e d u c a t i o n a l goals. While there  13  e x i s t taxonomies o f c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s and a f f e c t i v e p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s t o a s s i s t i n t h i s t a s k , the methodology f o r systematic data c o l l e c t i o n and 27  processing i s s t i l l t o be developed.  As a r e s u l t , an accurate s t a t e -  ment o f a course r a t i o n a l e i s o f t e n d i f f i c u l t t o o b t a i n .  Rirthermore,  i n s t r u c t o r s o f t e n have only a t a c i t knowledge o f t h e i r course r a t i o n a l e and when pressed, are o f t e n l e s s than e f f e c t i v e at p r e s e n t i n g i t . In view o f these l i m i t a t i o n s , Stake recommends that the i n s t r u c t o r r e c e i v e considerable assistance i n the c l a r i f i c a t i o n and refinement o f 28  the course r a t i o n a l e . T a y l o r and Maguire present a t h e o r e t i c a l model of a procedure i n which o b j e c t i v e s , roughly conceptualized, as i n a s o l i c i t e d course r a t i o n a l e , are c l a r i f i e d through i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and 29  processing i n t o s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r a l terms.  Scriven alternately r e -  commends that general course o b j e c t i v e s be c l a r i f i e d through the development o f a bank of t e s t items t h a t a student would be expected t o succeed on i f he had achieved the o b j e c t i v e s .  Both these procedures were  employed i n the development o f the i l l u s t r a t i v e course r a t i o n a l e given i n t h i s study. As a cautionary note, Stake warns that the r a t i o n a l e must u l t i m a t e l y be expressed i n the i n s t r u c t o r ' s own language. Outside suggestions and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s made d u r i n g the developmental stages o f the course r a t i o n a l e may be an o b s t a c l e , i f they become accepted by the i n s t r u c t o r on the grounds that they are a t t r a c t i v e r a t h e r than on the grounds t h a t 31 they t r u l y express what the i n s t r u c t o r i s t r y i n g t o do. Appendix A contains the f i n a l v e r s i o n o f the course r a t i o n a l e f o r the i n t r o d u c t o r y physics course used f o r i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes i n t h i s study.  Prom such a r a t i o n a l e may be a b s t r a c t e d i n f o r m a t i o n about the 14  a f f e c t i v e goals o f the i n s t r u c t o r , a f t e r which i t i s p o s s i b l e t o begin i d e n t i f y i n g those p r e v i o u s l y acquired a f f e c t i v e responses which may i n f l u e n c e the attainment o f these goals and should be considered i n the planning o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s . . These responses, o r a f f e c t i v e preconditions t o i n s t r u c t i o n are i d e n t i f i e d through d i s c u s s i o n sessions s i m i l a r t o those used i n the development o f the course r a t i o n a l e . The most obvious p r e v i o u s l y acquired a f f e c t i v e responses o f importance are those that d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t the student's incoming status on the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s inherent i n the a f f e c t i v e goals f o r the course. Fishbein's theory i s h e l p f u l i n i d e n t i f y i n g a second set o f important a f f e c t i v e responses; the a f f e c t i v e responses toward those v a r i a b l e s most c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the development o f the student's incoming status on these a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s .  F i s h b e i n ' s theory p r e d i c t s that the a c q u i s i t i o n  or development o f p a r t i c u l a r a f f e c t i v e responses toward a concept w i l l be i n f l u e n c e d t o the greatest degree by a f f e c t i v e responses toward those v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d most c l o s e l y t o the concept through b e l i e f s about the concept.  Thus i f the i n s t r u c t o r wishes t o change the student's incoming  status on the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s r e f l e c t e d i n a f f e c t i v e goals i t w i l l be necessary f o r him t o change the a f f e c t i v e s t a t u s on these r e l a t e d  variables,  or weaken the r e l a t i o n s h i p between these v a r i a b l e s and the concepts i n question.  2.3-2  STEP 2  Subproblem 2: S e l e c t , d e s c r i b e , and j u s t i f y the choice o f a psychometric technique f o r o b t a i n i n g observations on the antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses. Fishbein's mediation theory of l e a r n i n g has been s e l e c t e d t o provide a t h e o r e t i c a l context f o r the d e f i n i t i o n and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f 15  a f f e c t i v e responses.  The psychometric instrument used t o measure these  responses must t h e r e f o r e be consistent w i t h Fishbein's t h e o r e t i c a l view. Such an instrument has been developed by Osgood. Since c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f objects or concepts are corrmunicated p r i m a r i l y through a d j e c t i v e s , Osgood, whose main i n t e r e s t was t o measure *  facets o f meaning, assumed that a d j e c t i v e s could be used t o o b t a i n a 32  measure o f "meaning".  Working from t h i s assumption, Osgood sought t o  coordinate M s mediation theory w i t h an instrument constructed t o measure "meaning". Using a large sample o f b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s as anchors o f r a t i n g s c a l e s , he obtained responses on these s c a l e s f o r a large number o f d i f f e r e n t concepts.  Subsequent a n a l y s i s o f these responses l e d him •  t o i d e n t i f y a number o f common f a c t o r s among the b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s c a l e s , notably those c h a r a c t e r i z e d as e v a l u a t i v e , potency, and a c t i v i t y f a c t o r s . I t was these uncorrelated f a c t o r s which Osgood used as a general measure o f meaning o f "dimensions" spanning the "semantic space" o f the concepts. W i t h i n Fishbein's t h e o r e t i c a l framework these uncorrelated f a c t o r s are s a i d t o define o p e r a t i o n a l l y the a f f e c t i v e meaning system o f the concepts. I n current usage, Osgood's instrument i s termed g e n e r i c a l l y , the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l (SD), and r e f e r s t o any c o l l e c t i o n o f r a t i n g s c a l e s anchored by b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s . Appendix B provides a sample SD drawn from the p h y s i c s course i n which the Procedure i s i l l u s t r a t e d .  Consistent w i t h common p r a c t i c e , the  b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s i n t h i s sample are separated by seven s c a l e p o s i t i o n s . These p o s i t i o n s are assigned i n t e g r a l values such as - 3 t o +3, o r 1 t o 7. The c l u s t e r i n g s o f these scales i n t o orthogonal dimensions i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Appendix C. These dimensions were i d e n t i f i e d by a p r i n c i p a l component 16  a n a l y s i s of the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f responses t o the b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s c a l e s , followed by r o t a t i o n t o the varimax c r i t e r i o n .  These dimensions  define the semantic space or a f f e c t i v e meaning system f o r these concepts on these b i p o l a r s c a l e s . I n general, the f a c t o r s o r components underlying a p a r t i c u l a r set of scales are dependent upon the scales w i t h i n the set and on the p a r t i c u l a r concept o r set o f concepts being judged.  The l a t t e r phenomenon  34  i s known as concept-scale  interaction.  The p a r t i c u l a r choice o f con-  cepts and scales comprising the SD i n Appendix B was made t o o b t a i n a measure of the p r e v i o u s l y acquired a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s i d e n t i f i e d as p o s s i b l y i n f l u e n c i n g the f u l f i l l m e n t of the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course. concepts and s c a l e s are summarized i n Table 1 .  These  Many o f the s c a l e s were  o r i g i n a l , developed t o r e f l e c t the p a r t i c u l a r a f f e c t i v e responses o f concern i n t h i s one course.  I t was not s u r p r i s i n g therefore t o f i n d  f a c t o r s representing s a l i e n t a f f e c t i v e responses toward the concepts other than those c h a r a c t e r i z e d as e v a l u a t i v e , potency, and a c t i v i t y by Osgood.  Nor was i t s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d that the s c a l e s under d i f f e r e n t  concepts c l u s t e r e d i n d i f f e r e n t ways, even though each concept was on the same s c a l e s .  rated  Several o f Osgood's standard a d j e c t i v a l p a i r s which  most c l e a r l y define h i s e v a l u a t i v e , potency, and a c t i v i t y dimensions were i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the scales on t h i s SD t o a i d i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the c l u s t e r i n g s o f the o r i g i n a l s c a l e s developed f o r t h i s study. The Procedure, i n being consistent w i t h Osgood's and  Fishbein's  t h e o r e t i c a l , views, u t i l i z e s f a c t o r a n a l y s i s t o e s t a b l i s h the measures o f the a f f e c t i v e responses.  The use o f f a c t o r a n a l y s i s makes the Procedure  t e c h n i c a l l y unsuitable f o r courses w i t h a small number o f 1 7  students.  TABLE 1 Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Concepts 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  physics problem s o l v i n g n a t u r a l phenomena i n t e l l e c t u a l excitement my previous physics course my previous physics i n s t r u c t o r my' expectations toward Physics 110  Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Scales - i n d i r e c t i o n o f response weights (+3) t o (-3) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 910. 11. 12. 1314. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.  important - unimportant a p p l i c a b l e - not a p p l i c a b l e b e n e f i c i a l f o r s o c i e t y - harmful f o r s o c i e t y a c t i v e - passive sOnBtimes i n t e l l e c t u a l l y e x c i t i n g - never i n t e l l e c t u a l l y e x c i t i n g ' o r i e n t e d toward p r i n c i p l e s - o r i e n t e d toward f a c t s understandable - mysterious valuable - worthless l a r g e -- s m a l l efficient - inefficient needed by s o c i e t y - not needed by s o c i e t y c h a l l e n g i n g - not c h a l l e n g i n g good - bad r a t i o n a l - miraculous a l i v e - dead theoretical - intuitive strong - weak always fun - never fun n i c e - awful moving - s t i l l should be guided by s o c i e t y - should not be guided by s o c i e t y rewarding - unrewarding easy - d i f f i c u l t i n t e r e s t i n g - not i n t e r e s t i n g opportunity f o r i n i t i a t i v e - no opportunity f o r i n i t i a t i v e s t r a i g h t forward - t r i c k y encouraging - discouraging never d u l l - always d u l l b e a u t i f u l - ugly f a s t - slow c l a r i f i e s - complicates wide - narrow meaningful - meaningless necessary - unnecessary  18  However, t h i s i s not seen as a major c o n s t r a i n t on the usefulness of the Procedure, s i n c e i t i s aimed at courses w i t h l a r g e r numbers of students i n which i n s t r u c t o r s w i l l have d i f f i c u l t y i n t a k i n g i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses i n t o account i n planning I n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies. I n the next stage of the development of the Procedure, students are c a t e g o r i z e d , again u s i n g f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques, on the b a s i s of t h e i r p r o f i l e of scores on these c l u s t e r i n g s o f h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d s c a l e s . A student's p r o f i l e i s defined by h i s s c a l e - f a c t o r scores on each of the concepts.  Since the SD concepts and s c a l e s are s e l e c t e d t o r e f l e c t those  a f f e c t i v e responses o f concern i n the development o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s , these p r o f i l e s express the student's p o s i t i o n s on these a f f e c t i v e responses.  2.3-3  STEP 2  Subproblem 3 S e l e c t , d e s c r i b e , and j u s t i f y the choice of s t a t i s t i c a l techniques and c r i t e r i a f o r c l a s s i f y i n g students i n terms o f t h e i r antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses. Having obtained d e s c r i p t i o n s o f students w i t h i n a c l a s s on the b a s i s o f t h e i r antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses which may i n f l u e n c e the f u l f i l l m e n t o f course•goals, the next stage o f the systematic Procedure i s t o i d e n t i f y types of students on the b a s i s . o f t h e i r p r o f i l e s of scores on these v a r i a b l e s . . Q-analysis, a f a c t o r a n a l y t i c procedure f o r f a c t o r i n g people r a t h e r than t e s t s , has been s e l e c t e d as an appropriate means o f i d e n t i f y i n g these types.  This f a c t o r a n a l y t i c procedure i n t h i s context'  does not enjoy the almost u n i v e r s a l and t r a d i t i o n a l commitment t h a t R a n a l y s i s possesses i n the context o f SD data a n a l y s i s .  1 9  I n view o f t h i s ,  the s u i t a b i l i t y o f t h i s technique t o the proposed procedure w i l l be i l l u s t r a t e d through a d i s c u s s i o n o f i t s nature, i t s current s t a t u s , and i t s strengths and weaknesses. F a c t o r i n g people i n s t r e a d o f items i s not a new i d e a .  Names  such as Spearman,^ Thomson,^ and B u r t , ^ have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the c o r r e l a t i o n o f persons as v a r i a b l e s since the very e a r l y 1900's. However, i n 1935, Stephenson published a paper e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z i n g the p o t e n t i a l o f f a c t o r i n g c o r r e l a t i o n s between people.  Since then he has been the  main proponent and conceptual developer o f the Q-analysis.  Although  controversy d i d develop between Stephenson and some exponents o f convent i o n a l f a c t o r a n a l y s i s concerning the p o t e n t i a l value o f Q-analysis, i t has. been employed by b e h a v i o r a l science researchers o f considerably v a r i e d backgrounds.  Brown has published a b i b l i o g r a p h y o f c l o s e t o 600 such  ..,„..,,,_... 39  auucues.  X  The conventional data matrix  f o r  f a c t o r a n a l y t i c purposes has  people as rows and t e s t items o r v a r i a b l e s as columns, as depicted i n F i g . 3. tests Xll  X  =  X12  . . . X  l n  X21 X22 *  persons  «  XN1  XNn  F i g . 3.—Conventional Data M a t r i x o f Test  20  Scores  A standard a n a l y s i s of the t e s t items o r v a r i a b l e s i n t o r e l a t e d c l u s t e r s i s based upon the t e s t i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n matrix R, whose elements are the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f the columns o f X-  That i s . each element r . . o f R  i s the c o r r e l a t i o n between the columns of scores on t e s t s i and j . F a c t o r a n a l y s i s based upon the matrix R i s c a l l e d R a n a l y s i s or R technique. i s the technique used t o d e r i v e the s c a l e f a c t o r s from an  It  administration  o f a Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l instrument, where the t e s t items i n t h i s case are b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s c a l e s .  R a n a l y s i s provides a b a s i s f o r deterrriining  d i f f e r e n c e s i n terms o f a t t r i b u t e s or t r a i t s w i t h i n or between samples o f people. . I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t o i n t e r c o r r e l a t e the people o r rows i n s t e a d o f the t e s t s or columns o f the X m a t r i x , a procedure equivalent t o i n t e r c o r r e l a t i n g the columns o f X'>  the transpose o f X-  The r e s u l t i n g i n t e r -  c o r r e l a t i o n matrix expresses i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between people on the b a s i s of t h e i r p r o f i l e s of scores on the t e s t s , and the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of t h i s i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n matrix' e s t a b l i s h e s c l u s t e r s or types of people w i t h i n a sample.  This procedure has been termed transpose, Inverse, o r  obverse f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , or simply Q-analysis, as i t w i l l be c a l l e d i n t h i s study. The b a s i c problem t o be s o l v e d by Q-analysis i s t o i d e n t i f y c l u s t e r s o f p r o f i l e s which are s i m i l a r .  The term s i m i l a r i n t h i s context can  r e f e r t o the shape, mean l e v e l o f performance, or d i s p e r s i o n o f a p r o f i l e , o r any combination o f these.  The meaning o f these forms o f s i m i l a r i t y  i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the two score p r o f i l e s P-^ and the same u n i t s of measurement.  15 150  30  300  15 150  '21  30 300  below which u t i l i z e  If  and P  2  were p l o t t e d , they would be seen t o have the same r e l a t i v e  rnaxima and minima, o r shape.  However, the mean score o r l e v e l o f each  p r o f i l e d i f f e r s g r e a t l y , as does the v a r i a b i l i t y o r d i s p e r s i o n o f scores w i t h i n the p r o f i l e .  Guertin notes t h a t w h i l e shape i s the prime c r i t e r i o n  f o r p r o f i l e s i m i l a r i t y f o r many research purposes, p a r t i c u l a r l y  diag-  n o s t i c purposes, i n i t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be given t o s i m i l a r i t y i n the sense o f "congruence" between p r o f i l e s .  Hence he-recommends t h e  s e l e c t i o n o f an index o f p r o f i l e s i m i l a r i t y which r e f l e c t s l e v e l and d i s 40 p e r s i o n as w e l l as shape.  T h i s recommendation appears p a r t i c u l a r l y  p e r t i n e n t when the p r o f i l e elements are a f f e c t i v e responses f o r which l e v e l and v a r i a t i o n i n l e v e l are r e f l e c t i o n s o f the  o f the pro-ness o r con-ness  responses. In reviewing the s i m i l a r i t y i n d i c e s a v a i l a b l e , 41  most o f them ignore one o r two o f these c r i t e r i a .  G u e r t i n notes t h a t  F o r example, t h e  t r a d i t i o n a l index o f s i m i l a r i t y , the product moment c o r r e l a t i o n and the rank d i f f e r e n c e c o r r e l a t i o n  coefficient  are i n s e n s i t i v e  erences i n the l e v e l and variance o f the p r o f i l e scores.  coefficient, to diff-  Some t r a n s 42  formations o f the distance s t a t i s t i c have been proposed by C a t t e l l , 4? 44 Cronbach and G l e s e r ,  J  Osgood,  and others as an index o f p r o f i l e s i m i l -  a r i t y which considers -shape, l e v e l , and d i s p e r s i o n .  The v a r i a t i o n s i n  the use o f the distance concept a r i s e from the s e l e c t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t functions o f the distance s t a t i s t i c , o r from the process o f transforming t h i s s t a t i s t i c from a measure o f d i s s i m i l a r i t y t o a measure o f p r o f i l e similarity.  Some o f the proposed i n d i c e s based on the d i s t a n c e concept  a r e s s u s c e p t i b l e t o a.second weakness o f many•proposed s i m i l a r i t y i n d i c e s , 22 the non-Gramian property o f t h e i r i n t e r p r o f i l e m a t r i x , which renders them  unsuitable f o r f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques.  45  G u e r t i n t e s t e d the r e l a t i v e merits o f f i v e i n d i c e s of s i m i l a r i t y by performing a Q-analysis on 3 s e t s o f p r o f i l e s s e l e c t e d t o c l u s t e r i n an obvious manner.  Three o f these i n d i c e s were based on the f o l l o w i n g  distance measures: (1) a simple sum o f d i f f e r e n c e s between scores on 2 n p r o f i l e s (dl^. = E (X„ - X ^ ) ), (2) the sum of the squared d i f f e r e n c e s 2 n i-1 (dj = ~ ^3) the square root of the l a t t e r ( d j ) s k  k  where j and k represent persons.  The remaining two i n d i c e s were r ,  C a t t e l l ' s . p a t t e r n s i m i l a r i t y c o e f f i c e n t , and cross products (cp).  P  p  G u e r t i n found t h a t d and d' tended t o produce non-Gramian matrices and hence should be avoided. He a l s o observed t h a t f a c t o r a n a l y s i s or r  46 and. cross products, contrary t o the r e s p e c t i v e claims o f C a t t e l l  and  47 Nunnally,  d i d not tend t o separate the p r o f i l e s c l e a r l y i n t o t h e i r pre  designed c l u s t e r s i n the cases s t u d i e d . The best s e p a r a t i o n between typ was found f o r the a n a l y s i s employing d as a b a s i s f o r the i n t e r p r o f i l e s i m i l a r i t y index.  The d s t a t i s t i c a l s o seemed not t o l e a d t o a non-  Gramian matrix. The index o f s i m i l a r i t y based on the d s t a t i s t i c i s d e r i v e d 1. X -Cx..} i s the conventional score m a t r i x , where the f i r s t subthrough the f o l l o w i n g procedures: N n s c r i p t represents the person and the second s u b s c r i p t =  J 1  represents the t e s t . 2.  N  }  =w  D  N  J K  = /n {  I (X,. - X, .)  1=1  J  l  ^  j  i s the matrix o f d values }  or i n d i c e s of d i s s i m i l a r i t y . 23  3  -  C = {c  >  N N = {djyj^ J  K  x  }  i s a matrix o f i n d i c e s o f s i m i l a r i t y obtained by s u b t r a c t i n g each element of  JJ from the l a r g e s t element o f JJ  (excluding diagonal v a l u e s ) . 4.  S= N N  =  (s  }  C N N C.„. MAX v  i s a matrix o f i n d i c e s o f s i m i l a r i t y S.. where O i S . . < 1 i s obtained by JK jk d i v i d i n g each element o f C b v t n e N N l a r g e s t element i n C (excluding N N diagonal elements). Each diagonal element S.. o f S N N  i n i t i a l l y assigned  i s  1 1  a value equal t o l a r g e s t value o f S.^. i n colurnri j  y  ond f i L n s l  coiriruiJuictl11/y sstiirici'tGS  are d e r i v e d by an i t e r a t i v e procedure. S , w i t h the f i n a l estimates o f communality i n the d i a g o n a l , i s N N then subjected t o a p r i n c i p a l axes a n a l y s i s , a f t e r which a s e l e c t number of axes are r o t a t e d t o the varimax c r i t e r i o n . G u e r t i n j u s t i f i e s the s e l e c t i o n o f the l a r g e s t value o f  in  column j as the i n i t i a l communality estimate by making an analogy t o R a n a l y s i s , where the simplest procedure f o r e s t i m a t i n g communality i s t o s e l e c t the l a r g e s t r i n the corresponding column. value o f S..  f o r person j i s that index  Guertin's i n i t i a l  r e f l e c t i n g person k as that  person i n the sample who most resembles person j .  The s u i t a b i l i t y o f t h i s  highest column value as an estimate o f communality i s evidenced by the f a c t that i n Guertin's s t u d i e s , the average i t e r a t e d communalities were 24  found not t o exceed the i n i t i a l average estimates by more than  4%.  HO  While Q-analysis has found wide acceptance and a p p l i c a t i o n , there are s t i l l many researchers who oppose t h i s technique, most o f whom favour R a n a l y s i s which provides d e s c r i p t i o n i n terms o f t r a i t s r a t h e r than types.  For example, C a t t e l l ' s ambivalence  to Q f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i s  based on the f a c t t h a t people ( i . e . , types) are hard t o r e f e r back t o as a standard.  As C a t t e l l says, "People can't be f i l e d away i n a drawer".  However, t h i s statement cannot be considered the b a s i s f o r a wide condemnation o f Q-analysis, but r a t h e r as a guide which d i r e c t s Q-analysis away from s t u d i e s which attempt t o e s t a b l i s h constructs a p p l i c a b l e t o v a r i e d s i t u a t i o n s and populations.  C a t t e l l h i m s e l f w r i t e s t h a t Q-analysis  i s u s e f u l i n a d i f f e r e n t context, t h a t o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t y p o l o g i e s i n a 50 given p o p u l a t i o n on an empirical, b a s i s .  T h i s i s the context i n which  t h i s study i s employing Q-analysis. Guertin's use of the distance (d) s t a t i s t i c r a i s e s some s t a t i s t i c a l c r i t i c i s m of the Q-technique.  G u e r t i n argues t h a t most o f these  c r i t i c i s m s are created by researchers' r e l a t i v e u n f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h d a n a l y s i s , which encourages them t o attend c a r e f u l l y t o i t s t h e o r e t i c a l bases.  He p o i n t s out t h a t analogous d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h the product-  moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t are ignored as "minor f a u l t s o f o l d f r i e n d s " A major c r i t i c i s m o f d, f o r example, i s t h a t i t makes no sense t o apply i t t o p r o f i l e s o f non orthogonal o r c o r r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s , since the 52 computation o f d assumes independence o f t e s t v a r i a b l e s .  While C a t t e l l  53 and O v e r a l l have accepted t h i s c r i t i c i s m and provided s t a t i s t i c a l 54 adjustments which c o r r e c t f o r c o r r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s , Nunnally  and G u e r t i n  argue t h a t i f t h i s c r i t i c i s m i s t o be accepted, then one must a l s o apply 25  5  i t t o a conventional c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f t e s t s .  Nunnally shows  that the product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r standardized scores 2 i s r e l a t e d t o d by t h e expression r = 1 - d_. When r i s between two 2N v a r i a b l e s , d i s the distance between the two i n the space o f persons, where each person i s represented by an a x i s orthogonal t o t h a t o f a l l other persons.  However, Nunnally notes t h a t since people tend t o  c o r r e l a t e w i t h one another on the b a s i s o f score p r o f i l e s , they cannot be represented by orthogonal axes any more v a l i d l y than v a r i a b l e s can be represented by orthogonal axes i n the t e s t space employed i n a d a n a l y s i s o f people.  Nunnally observes t h a t t h i s u n d e r l y i n g f a u l t has not prevented  the use o f the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . I n summarizing h i s argument against t h e above c r i t i c i s m , Nunnally states t h a t there i s no mathematical n e c e s s i t y f o r r e s t r i c t i n g the use of d t o those s i t u a t i o n s where the v a r i a b l e s are independent.  He p o i n t s  out t h a t f o r mathematical a n a l y s i s an orthogonal space I s constructed, and t h a t the r e a l i s s u e i n v o l v e d concerns the i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y o f t h i s analysis.  " I f an i n v e s t i g a t o r can make sense o f p r o f i l e c l u s t e r s regard-  l e s s o f the c o r r e l a t i o n s among v a r i a b l e s , he has every r i g h t t o use t h e 56 methods o f a n a l y s i s discussed." Having i d e n t i f i e d i d e a l i z e d types o f students v i a a Q-analysis of t h e i r p r o f i l e s o f a f f e c t i v e l e a r n i n g s , f o r the purposes o f t h i s study i t i s necessary t o describe these types i n terms o f a f f e c t i v e l e a r n i n g s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the people w i t h i n each type.  While t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n  can t y p i c a l l y be given by a p r o f i l e o f mean scores o f the people w i t h i n each type, Guertin p o i n t s out t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r every i n d i v i d u a l w i t h i n a "type" t o have a p r o f i l e q u i t e d i s s i m i l a r t o the p r o f i l e o f 26  the means.  As an a l t e r n a t i v e , G u e r t i n proposes modal p a t t e r n s , o r  p a t t e r n s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f subjects m o s t . t y p i c a l o f each type.  Specifi-  c a l l y , a modal p a t t e r n i s a h y p o t h e t i c a l p r o f i l e o f average t e s t scores obtained from a t i g h t c l u s t e r o f i n d i v i d u a l s most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h a t type.  As d i s t i n c t from a p r o f i l e o f means f o r an e n t i r e group, a modal  p a t t e r n i s a close approximation t o a number o f p r o f i l e s a c t u a l l y i n the group.  The term modal i n t h i s context r e f e r s t o the frequent r e 57  currence o f the p r o f i l e f o r members o f the type. Guertin has prepared a comprehensive computer program f o r p r o f i l e analysis.  This program incorporates h i s proposals as discussed, f i r s t  f o r i d e n t i f y i n g types on the b a s i s o f p r o f i l e scores, and then d e s c r i b i n g these types i n terms o f modal p a t t e r n s . t o i d e n t i f y the types through two operations-.  G u e r t i n has found i t best I n i t i a l l y , he f a c t o r  analyzes the i n t e r p r o f i l e c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x , which e s t a b l i s h e s f a c t o r s or c l u s t e r s o f p r o f i l e s on the b a s i s o f shape only.  A d matrix i s then  obtained and f a c t o r analyzed f o r the p r o f i l e s w i t h i n each "shape" f a c t o r i n d i v i d u a l l y , t o determine whether each i n i t i a l c l u s t e r can now be f u r t h e r 58  subdivided on the b a s i s o f l e v e l and/or d i s p e r s i o n . Guertin's computer program was used as p a r t o f the Procedure, and i s described i n Appendix E.  I n t h i s study, the product o f i t s use  i s a s e t o f modal patterns r e p r e s e n t i n g c o n s t r u c t s , o r i d e a l i z e d types of students i n terms o f t h e i r antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses toward course content and i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . The a f f e c t i v e responses r e presented i n the modal patterns are used by the i n s t r u c t o r i n planning instructional strategies.  27  2.3.4  STEP 2  Subproblem 4 Select and describe t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n s and experimental f i n d i n g s p e r t i n e n t t o the s e l e c t i o n o f teaching s t r a t e g i e s which (1) appear appropriate f o r students c l a s s i f i e d i n the d i f f e r e n t categories i n terms o f t h e i r previous a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s , and (2) appear u s e f u l i n teaching d i r e c t e d toward a f f e c t i v e goals. The Procedure t o t h i s p o i n t has grouped students w i t h i n a c l a s s *  on one p a r t i c u l a r b a s i s — a f f e c t i v e responses.  the s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e i r p r o f i l e s o f antecedent  I n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s must now be s e l e c t e d f o r  each o f these groups which w i l l best achieve the goals o f the course. As discussed i n s e c t i o n 2.3.1 can be o f two types:  the a f f e c t i v e responses on the p r o f i l e s  (1) a f f e c t i v e responses that r e f l e c t the  students' incoming status on the a f f e c t i v e goals themselves, and  (2)  a f f e c t i v e responses toward v a r i a b l e s s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n t i a l i n the development o f the student's incoming s t a t u s on the a f f e c t i v e goals.  It is  e s s e n t i a l that the a f f e c t i v e responses r e f l e c t i n g the students' incoming status on the a f f e c t i v e goals be i n c l u d e d on the p r o f i l e s .  Decisions  regarding the i n c l u s i o n of the second type o f a f f e c t i v e responses on the p r o f i l e s w i l l depend upon observations unique t o each a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Procedure, and can be guided by (1) the f a c t that i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t p r o f i l e s w i t h large numbers (10 o r more) o f v a r i a b l e s and t o a l e s s e r degree (2) the e m p i r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s observed t o e x i s t between the  a f f e c t i v e responses of type (1) and (2). I t i s f i r s t important t o i d e n t i f y the antecedent status o f each  group on each o f the a f f e c t i v e goals by studying the modal patterns o f each group.  This a n a l y s i s determines the extent t o which the i n s t r u c t o r  must s t r e s s each o f the a f f e c t i v e goals i n each group.  I t may a l s o be  u s e f u l t o i d e n t i f y f o r each group the a f f e c t i v e responses toward the  28  v a r i a b l e s c l o s e l y associated w i t h the development o f the students' i n coming s t a t u s on these g o a l s , i f these v a r i a b l e s are i n c l u d e d on the profiles.  I f the incorning s t a t u s on the a f f e c t i v e goals i s unfavourable,  and s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s incoming s t a t u s a l s o e l i c i t unfavourable a f f e c t i v e responses, F i s h b e i n ' s theory suggests t h a t the f u l f i l l m e n t of the a f f e c t i v e goals i s dependent on e i t h e r changing these r e l a t e d unfavourable responses, or weakening the a s s o c i a t i o n between 59 these v a r i a b l e s and the concepts r e f l e c t e d i n the a f f e c t i v e goals.  Hence  the a n a l y s i s o f the modal p a t t e r n s f o r each group provides concrete suggestions f o r (1) which goals the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s t o be s e l e c t e d must address, and (2) on the b a s i s o f F i s h b e i n ' s theory, some means by which the s t r a t e g i e s can address these goals. For example, one o f the goals of the physics course t o be used to i l l u s t r a t e the procedure proposed i n t h i s study i s t o have students view physics as i n t e r e s t i n g .  I f on e n t e r i n g the course t h i s group viewed  physics as u n i n t e r e s t i n g , and a l s o d i s p l a y e d a s i m i l a r unfavourable response toward t h e i r previous physics i n s t r u c t o r and toward problem s o l v i n g i n p h y s i c s , then the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s formulated t o f u l f i l l , t h i s g o a l could attempt t o : (1) weaken the a s s o c i a t i o n between physics and the previous physics i n s t r u c t o r by d i s p l a y i n g the present i n s t r u c t o r as very i n t e r e s t i n g , and (2) change the unfavourable  response  toward problem s o l v i n g by u s i n g problem s o l v i n g e x e r c i s e s s e l e c t e d t o be very i n t e r e s t i n g . In a d d i t i o n t o the t h e o r e t i c a l guidance given by F i s h b e i n ' s theory, d i r e c t i o n i n the s e l e c t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s a l s o comes from e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s . Mager, f o r example, i n an e m p i r i c a l study of 65  former  students, found t h a t t h e i r present approach o r avoidance tendencies toward s p e c i f i c academic s u b j e c t s were developed t o a l a r g e degree by t h e i r a f f e c t i v e responses toward previous i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the i n s t r u c t o r .  Because o f these observed i n s t r u c t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e s on  a f f e c t toward the subject matter, Mager compiled a l i s t o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s which he claims are u n i v e r s a l enough i n t h e i r e f f e c t t o provide considerable guidance t o the i n s t r u c t o r i n improving a student's a f f e c t toward the i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s , and hence the subject matter a l s o . ^ I n the a f f e c t i v e realm o f t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g (and f o r t h a t matter i n the c o g n i t i v e realm as w e l l ) , education as a p r o f e s s i o n does not possess the t h e o r e t i c a l o r e m p i r i c a l resources needed f o r "matching" .types o f i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h types o f i n s t r u c t i o n beyond those resources s i m i l a r i n nature t o Pishbein's theory o r Mager's e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s . These resources, together w i t h a d d i t i o n a l research cn m o t i v a t i o n , i n t e r e s t , d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l , mental s e t , and other a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s provide guidel i n e s , but only g u i d e l i n e s , f o r determining the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s needed t o achieve an intended outcome f o r a g i v e n i n d i v i d u a l .  Within  these g u i d e l i n e s the s e l e c t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r s t r a t e g y must s t i l l be based t o a l a r g e extent on the personal experience o f the teacher. Smith, Meux, et a l have performed an e m p i r i c a l study which i s p o t e n t i a l l y u s e f u l i n the Procedure f o r i d e n t i f y i n g types o f v e r b a l teaching s t r a t e g i e s an i n s t r u c t o r may use t o achieve the a f f e c t i v e responses d e s i r e d . ^  T h e i r d e s c r i p t i v e study analyzes t r a n s c r i p t s o f  a c t u a l classroom discourse as a means o f I d e n t i f y i n g , d e s c r i b i n g and c l a s s i f y i n g s e t s o f v e r b a l t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s used t o achieve s e l e c t e d types o f goals.  Smith and Meux do not attempt t o r e l a t e p a r t i c u l a r  30  s t r a t e g i e s t o p a r t i c u l a r types-of students.  Nor do they attempt t o draw  inferences about which s t r a t e g i e s are most appropriate f o r a c h i e v i n g d e s i r e d outcomes, although they do present l o g i c a l d i s c u s s i o n s o f the types o f i n f o r m a t i o n that must be r e l a y e d by the s t r a t e g i e s t o achieve these outcomes. Pedagogically, the concept o f " s t r a t e g y " advanced by Smith and h i s co-workers r e f e r s t o a set of v e r b a l a c t i o n s t h a t serves t o a t t a i n 62 c e r t a i n r e s u l t s and t o guard against others.  They designate the v e r b a l  behavior o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g a c l a s s s e s s i o n as a t o t a l discourse.  The  v e r b a l behavior o f one person at one p o i n t i n the t o t a l discourse i s 64  termed an utterance. "A segment o f discourse c o n s i s t i n g o f a set o f . utterances d e a l i n g w i t h a s i n g l e t o p i c and having a s i n g l e overarching 65  content o b j e c t i v e " i s r e f e r r e d t o as a venture.  I n t h e i r study of  a c t u a l classroom d i s c o u r s e s , they have i d e n t i f i e d eight d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s o f ventures: conceptual, c a u s a l , p a r t i c u l a r , e v a l u a t i v e , i n t e r p r e t a t i v e , 66  p r o c e d u r a l , reason, and r u l e .  The focus o f t h i s study's i n t e r e s t i s  on " e v a l u a t i v e ventures". The ventures were f u r t h e r analyzed i n t o u n i t s termed "moves". A move i s a v e r b a l a c t i v i t y which introduces one p a r t i c u l a r b i t o f i n f o r n a t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h the venture o b j e c t i v e .  An i n s t r u c t o r , student, o r  an i n s t r u c t o r and one o r more students together can make a move.  The  moves c o n s t i t u t i n g e v a l u a t i v e ventures are those o f importance t o the Procedure. S i x d i f f e r e n t groups o f moves have been recognized i n e v a l u a t i v e ventures: i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , d e s c r i p t i o n , r a t i n g , c r i t e r i a l , r e l a t i o n a l , and 68  tangential.  The twenty moves w i t h i n these groups are defined i n 31  Appendix D, and i n d i c a t e those s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s t h a t might be undertaken t o develop a d e s i r e d e v a l u a t i v e - response. . E v a l u a t i v e ventures have as t h e i r overarching o b j e c t i v e the development and j u s t i f i c a t i o n  o f an e v a l u a t i v e a s s e r t i o n o r r a t i n g .  The  objects o f an e v a l u a t i v e a s s e r t i o n , r e f e r r e d t o as value o b j e c t s , can be people, events, b e l i e f s , a c t i o n s , arguments, p r a c t i c e s , and so on, and the value term i s u s u a l l y an e x p l i c i t l y  normative word l i k e "good", " f a i r " ,  "worthwhile", " d i f f i c u l t " , o r " b e n e f i c i a l " .  A statement a p p l y i n g a value  69  term t o a value object i s c a l l e d a r a t i n g .  An " e v a l u a t i v e r a t i n g " i n  Smith's framework i n c l u d e s the n o t i o n of an " a f f e c t i v e response" i n F i s h b e i n ' s framework, as presented i n S e c t i o n 2.2.  These two terms w i l l be  used interchangeably i n t h i s study. Smith and co-workers i d e n t i f y the process of making a  justified  r a t i n g as being dependent on the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : (a) knowing the value object t o be r a t e d ; (b) understanding the value term; (c) knowing the p r o p e r t i e s which are c r i t e r i a l f o r the value term i n r e l a t i o n t o the k i n d of object being evaluated; and (d) knowing whether or not the p a r t i c u l a r object has the p r o p e r t i e s . A j u s t i f i e d  evaluative r a t i n g or  a f f e c t i v e response given by an i n d i v i d u a l would t h e r e f o r e be  determined  through a comparison o f the c r i t e r i a l p r o p e r t i e s of the value term f o r the p a r t i c u l a r value object w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l s ' a c t u a l b e l i e f s about 70 the q u a l i t i e s o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r value o b j e c t .  This view on the  f a c t o r s determining a f f e c t i v e responses i s compatible w i t h F i s h b e i n ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f these f a c t o r s .  Smith and co-workers f e e l t h a t t h e i r model  o f a f f e c t development i s o f t e n o v e r l y demanding t o serve as a pedagogical model, and e v a l u a t i v e ventures not meeting i t s degree of s u b t l e t y should 32 71 not be considered "poor".  Coombs and Meux, b u i l d i n g on the e a r l i e r work o f Smith, Meux, et a l , have l i s t e d s i x tasks which must be f u l f i l l e d as l o g i c a l r e q u i s i t e s of a j u s t i f i e d e v a l u a t i v e r a t i n g .  These s i x tasks are:  I I d e n t i f y i n g and c l a r i f y i n g the value question I I Assembling purported f a c t s I I I Assessing the truth, o f purported f a c t s IV C l a r i f y i n g the relevance o f f a c t s V A r r i v i n g a t a t e n t a t i v e value d e c i s i o n VI T e s t i n g the value p r i n c i p l e i m p l i e d i n the d e c i s i o n These tasks can be f u l f i l l e d through moves made by an i n s t r u c t o r alone, a student alone, o r an i n s t r u c t o r o r student together.  These  tasks t h e r e f o r e define the scope o f the teaching f u n c t i o n s t o be served by an i n s t r u c t o r i n the development o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f an e v a l u a t i v e r a t i n g o r a f f e c t i v e response toward an o b j e c t . W i t h i n the context o f the Procedure, P i g . 4 provides an example of the manner i n which the t e a c h i n g f u n c t i o n s I through V I can be used to guide an i n s t r u c t o r i n the s e l e c t i o n o f teaching s t r a t e g i e s . example, i f R  For  i n c l u d e s the students' r a t i n g o f the "importance o f p h y s i c s " ,  and i f a group (type) o f students p r e s e n t l y r a t e s p h y s i c s as "unimportant" (as the sample modal p a t t e r n i n F i g . H d e p i c t s ) then S_^, S_^, . . . and S  j, represent the scope o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s o r sets o f moves which  r e s p e c t i v e l y address the teaching f u n c t i o n s I through V I and which are needed t o develop and j u s t i f y the e v a l u a t i v e r a t i n g "Physics i s Important". For the group represented by the sample modal p a t t e r n i n F i g . 4, the same c o n s i d e r a t i o n s would apply t o the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g represented by R_ and R_.  The moves w i t h i n the s t r a t e g i e s S.,., corresponding t o the  33  Legend  Modal P a t t e r n (example)  C: comprehensibility P: potency  E = evaluation E i = importance E_ = i n t e r e s t  Strategies  Problem Solving  Physics  Natural Phenomena  An inst.ructional strategy ( S j j ) i s a set o f moves made by the teacher, student, or both, which serves a given teaching f u n c t i o n ( I through V I ) .  A f f e c t i v e Ratings R l t o be Addressed through I n s t r u c t i o n  R  I  2 RJ  II S  xi  S  xri  S  S  X2  S  XT2  S  ^3 R  S  R, R R R, R.  III  _ 3  S  I4  JI4  S  xzr_ X_2  •  S  S  X6  S  XT6  S  S  X7  S  XT7  S  X_7  S  x_s  S  T_9  S  I9  S  xr_ XT9  •  F i g . 4.—An Example o f the A f f e c t i v e Ratings and Required I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s I d e n t i f i e d by a Modal P a t t e r n .  S  X7 6  S  r/7 S  XV5  W9  S  VT2  S  V3  S  V4  S  V5-  S  S  S  J7X6  VTl  S  V2  S  S  __5  XT5-  S  3  m4  S  I8  _  S  X5  S  XV2  S  S  S  •  \l '  VI  V  IV  V6  S  VT3 VI4 VI5 WT6  S  VI7  V7  S  V8  S  V9  S  S  S  S  VT8  VT9  teaching functions t o be served, can be s e l e c t e d from the moves l i s t e d i n Appendix D.  For example, the moves s e l e c t e d f o r the t e a c h i n g f u n c t i o n  " i d e n t i f y and c l a r i f y the value q u e s t i o n " can i n c l u d e : 1. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f Value Object and/or Value Term 2. D e s c r i p t i o n o f Value Object 3. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Value Object 4. Instance Comparison o f Value Object 5. E x p l i c a t i o n o f the Value Term Sets o f s i m i l a r moves o r s t r a t e g i e s can be i d e n t i f i e d f o r each t e a c h i n g function.  Sources such as FIshbein's p s y c h o l o g i c a l theory or Mager's  e m p i r i c a l studies can be used at t h i s p o i n t t o guide the s e l e c t i o n o f these moves. The teaching f u n c t i o n s a c t u a l l y performed by an i n s t r u c t o r w i l l depend upon the p a r t i c u l a r e v a l u a t i v e r a t i n g i n question.  For controver-  s i a l o r emotionally based r a t i n g s of a general nature such as "Nixon was a good P r e s i d e n t " , i t may be necessary t o i n s t r u c t i o n a l l y address each of I through "VT i n a comprehensive f a s h i o n .  For l e s s c o n t r o v e r s i a l , s p e c i f i c  r a t i n g s such as "Ford cars are dependable" o r "Physics i s important", i t may only be necessary t o i n s t r u c t i o n a l l y address tasks I and I I . students alone may f u l f i l l the t a s k s IV through V I .  The  Decisions regarding  the t a s k s t o be addressed w i l l a l s o be dependent on the students' f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the value object and value term, and on the nature and sources of f a c t s supporting the value statement.  The value o f Coombs and Meux's  l i s t i s that i t provides a check l i s t o r guide which d i r e c t s the i n s t r u c t o r t o consider the need t o f u l f i l l each o f these tasks through formal instruction.  35  Fig.  4 w i l l be used i n Chapter I I I t o guide the s e l e c t i o n o f  teaching s t r a t e g i e s which w i l l address a sample group o f e v a l u a t i v e r a t i n g s o r a f f e c t i v e responses toward objects r e f l e c t e d i n the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the Physics 110 course.  2.4 Terminology W i t h i n the context o f Fishbein's theory the v a r i a b l e s o f concern t o t h i s study have been r e f e r r e d t o as "dimensions o f the a f f e c t i v e meaning system o f a concept", " a f f e c t i v e responses t o an object", or "affective ratings".  Smith, Meux, e t a l r e f e r t o these  v a r i a b l e s as " e v a l u a t i v e a s s e r t i o n s o r r a t i n g s " , and Coombs and Meux speak o f "value judgments".  W i t h i n the context o f t h i s study these  terms are considered synonymous.  While the remainder o f t h i s study  w i l l c o n s i s t e n t l y r e f e r t o " o b j e c t s " and not "concepts", the terms " a f f e c t i v e response t o an o b j e c t " , " a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g " , and "value judgment" w i l l each be used.  The reader should consider these terms  as interchangeable.  2.5 Summary . The development o f the Procedure presented has been guided by both t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l resources. The major t h e o r e t i c a l d i r e c t i o n given the study evolves from F i s h b e i n ' s mediation theory o f l e a r n i n g . His theory i s used t o guide both the s e l e c t i o n and measurement o f antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses and the s e l e c t i o n o f s t r a t e g i e s which attempt t o develop o r change a f f e c t i v e responses.  A n a l y t i c a l d i r e c t i o n i n the  s e l e c t i o n o f teaching s t r a t e g i e s a l s o evolves from the tasks i d e n t i f i e d  36  by Coombs and Meux as r e q u i s i t e t o the development and j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f a value judgment.  The e m p i r i c a l l y based stages'of the Procedure have  been given major d i r e c t i o n by Stake's model o f e d u c a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n , T a y l o r and Maguire's and Scriven's systematic means o f developing a course r a t i o n a l e , Osgood's and F i s h b e i n * s SD measurement o f a f f e c t i v e responses, Stephenson's and Guertin's a p p l i c a t i o n o f f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques, and the a n a l y s i s o f v e r b a l s t r a t e g i e s i n t e a c h i n g f o r a f f e c t i v e outcomes developed by Smith and h i s co-workers. An a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Procedure w i l l be 'discussed i n Chapter I I I . This a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l i l l u s t r a t e each stage o f the Procedure, w i l l serve t o p o i n t out some o f the more t e c h n i c a l aspects o f the Procedure, and w i l l provide the data upon which the Procedure w i l l be evaluated.  37  CHAPTER I I I AN APPLICATION OP THE PROCEDURE  3.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n The need f o r the Procedure described i n Chapter I I arose' during a formative e v a l u a t i o n study o f a f i r s t year physics course, Physics 110, at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. given i n Appendix A.  A d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h i s course i s  U t i l i z i n g Stake's framework as a guide t o t h i s  73 evaluation,  two o f the. i n i t i a l f u n c t i o n s o f the p r o j e c t were t o form-  u l a t e the course r a t i o n a l e and t o measure the students' antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses t h a t r e l a t e d t o the a f f e c t i v e goals i n the r a t i o n a l e . The i n s t r u c t o r was given data on the a f f e c t i v e responses o f each student, the c l a s s averages on these a f f e c t i v e responses, and the averages o f various subgroups o f the c l a s s d e f i n e d on the b a s i s o f a p r i o r i c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s such as career choice, number o f physics courses taken p r e v i o u s l y , sex, e t c .  W i t h i n the c l a s s , and w i t h i n each a p r i o r i c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  there was a great range o f a f f e c t i v e responses.  The average a f f e c t i v e  responses f o r these groups were t h e r e f o r e o f l i t t l e value f o r planning instruction.  Upon viewing t h i s s i t u a t i o n i t became apparent that f o r  i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes i t would be more u s e f u l t o define groups e m p i r i c a l l y on the b a s i s o f t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y o f antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses.  At  t h i s p o i n t i n the study o f t h i s course the remaining elements o f the Procedure described i n Chapter I I were not a v a i l a b l e .  Hence w h i l e the  i l l u s t r a t i v e Q-analysis reported i n t h i s chapter u t i l i z e d the a f f e c t i v e data from the Physics 110 course, the r e s u l t s o f the Q-analysis and the 38  s t r a t e g i e s s e l e c t e d f o r the groups of students i d e n t i f i e d were not a v a i l able t o the i n s t r u c t o r during the course.  However, i n t h i s present study  the Physics 110 data have provided the b a s i s upon which both the pragmatic aspects and l i m i t a t i o n s of the Procedure can be examined.  3.2  P l a n o f t h i s Chapter  This chapter w i l l f o l l o w the p r o g r e s s i o n o f steps i n the Procedure as d e l i n e a t e d i n Chapter I I .  The Physics 110 course data w i l l be used  t o i l l u s t r a t e (1) the development of a course r a t i o n a l e , (2) the development of the SD instrument and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the students' a f f e c t i v e responses through the a n a l y s i s o f t h e i r responses t o t h i s instrument, (3) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n of groups of students w i t h s i m i l a r a f f e c t i v e responses through Q-analysis of t h e i r p r o f i l e s of a f f e c t i v e responses, and (4) the s e l e c t i o n o f a sample o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s f o r each of the groups i d e n t i f i e d by the Q-analysis. •  3-3 The Development o f the Course Rationale As discussed i n Chapter I I , the course r a t i o n a l e i s a statement of the general purpose of the course given by the i n s t r u c t o r .  The  j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the s e l e c t i o n o f a purpose may be e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d or i m p l i c i t l y r e f l e c t e d i n the statement o f purpose..  Perhaps the  most important and most d i f f i c u l t task w i t h i n the Procedure was t o o b t a i n an accurate and complete statement of the r a t i o n a l e . I n a s s i s t i n g the i n s t r u c t o r t o formulate h i s course r a t i o n a l e the i n v e s t i g a t o r found the methods advanced by T a y l o r and Maguire 2.3.1) t o be the most productive.  (Section  The i n v e s t i g a t o r f i r s t obtained a  39  s o l i c i t e d statement of the general purposes of the course.  This s t a t e -  ment o f purposes was then viewed i n terms o f i t s appropriateness or consistency w i t h f a c t s p e r t i n e n t t o the course, and i n terms o f i t s l o g i c a l consistency w i t h the s p e c i f i c value s t r u c t u r e s or p r i n c i p l e s i f and when they were put f o r t h as j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the purposes. Subsequent d i s c u s s i o n . s e s s i o n s concerning these purposes between the i n s t r u c t o r and the i n v e s t i g a t o r were audio-taped and analyzed by the investigator.  The i n v e s t i g a t o r then attempted v a r i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s  of the i n s t r u c t o r s statements i n the form o f b e h a v i o r a l d e l i n e a t i o n s , and at the next d i s c u s s i o n s e s s i o n would present these i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t o the i n s t r u c t o r f o r acceptance, r e j e c t i o n , or f u r t h e r a r t i c u l a t i o n .  These  d i s c u s s i o n sessions were guided by questions such as " I f students d i d . . ., would t h i s be evidence t h a t t h i s g o a l was f u l f i l l e d ? " , "Why  i s i t impor-  tant that students be able t o . . ., o r f e e l that . . .?", "Does t h i s goal i n c l u d e a f e e l i n g o f ... .?", and so on.  I n s e r v i n g h i s r o l e the  i n v e s t i g a t o r d i d not pass judgment on e i t h e r the purposes s t a t e d o r on the j u s t i f i c a t i o n put f o r t h i n t h e i r b e h a l f .  Nor d i d he suggest what the  purposes o f the course should be, or impose b i s own value s t r u c t u r e or commonly accepted value s t r u c t u r e s .  Rather, through an i n t e r p r e t i v e  r o l e , he helped the i n s t r u c t o r c l a r i f y h i s t h i n k i n g on what he_ wanted students t o l e a r n , and why he f e l t they should l e a r n i t . I n the Physics 110 course, the f i n a l v e r s i o n o f the course r a t i o n a l e was the product o f a s e r i e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s between the author, a second i n v e s t i g a t o r working on the e v a l u a t i o n p r o j e c t , and the i n s t r u c t o r .  During  the s i x week p e r i o d over which these i n t e r a c t i o n s occurred, four w r i t t e n versions o f the course r a t i o n a l e were produced. l a s t of these v e r s i o n s . 1(0  Appendix A contains the  3.3.1 Statements w i t h i n the Course Rationale r e l a t i n g t o A f f e c t i v e Goals Once t h e course r a t i o n a l e had been d e l i n e a t e d t o the s a t i s f a c t i o n o f both the i n s t r u c t o r and i n v e s t i g a t o r , i t was p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y the statements w i t h i n i t t h a t r e l a t e d t o the a f f e c t i v e goals.  These s t a t e -  ments have been underscored i n the r a t i o n a l e I n Appendix A.  A study o f  these statements i n d i c a t e d that the i n s t r u c t o r ' s main motivation f o r teaching t h i s course was " . . . t o the students".  t o make physics enjoyable and i n t e r e s t i n g  I n a d d i t i o n t o t h i s very general g o a l , the i n s t r u c t o r  wanted h i s students t o be predisposed  toward physics as:  (1) a powerful way t o understand a wide range o f n a t u r a l phenomena, (2) a b a s i s f o r working i n science, technology, and t o some extent i n medicine, and (3) an e n t e r p r i s e o f s o c i e t y w i t h important, i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r human welfare. I n h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f ( 1 ) , the i n s t r u c t o r i n d i c a t e d he would attempt t o expose the s t r u c t u r e s i n and commonalities among n a t u r a l phenomena by showing t h a t a few b a s i c laws o f physics are s u f f i c i e n t t o r e l a t e and thereby understand a vast number o f experiences.  I n t h i s r e s p e c t , he  hoped students would f e e l " i n t e l l e c t u a l excitement" a t being able t o see "the beauty o f a l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e i n nature", and t h a t t h i s s t r u c t u r e would "demystify" n a t u r a l phenomena, making many more phenomena understandable.  I n d i s c u s s i n g ( 2 ) , the i n s t r u c t o r d i s c l o s e d that he wished  students t o see that an understanding o f the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s o f physics i s needed f o r work i n a diverse v a r i e t y o f s c i e n t i f i c p r o f e s s i o n s .  In  a d d i t i o n , he wished problem s o l v i n g t o be seen as a valuable and powerful means f o r o b t a i n i n g an understanding o f how physics works.  41  The i n s t r u c t o r ' s  d i s c u s s i o n s of (3)  i n d i c a t e d t h a t he wished students t o see the r e l a t i o n -  ships between science and s o c i e t y and t h e i r mutual r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . These a f f e c t i v e responses o f i n t e r e s t , enjoyment, power, need, understanding, importance, e t c . , that the i n s t r u c t o r i n d i c a t e d he  was  going t o attempt t o i n s t i l l , were d e l i n e a t e d through v e r b a l d i s c u s s i o n s between the i n v e s t i g a t o r and i n s t r u c t o r when the SD instrument was constructed.  This d e t a i l w i l l be d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 3.^.1  the s e l e c t i o n of the SD concepts and s c a l e s .  which discusses  I n these d i s c u s s i o n s , as  i n the r a t i o n a l e , i t was apparent t h a t the major a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course r e l a t e d f i r s t t o "making physics enjoyable and i n t e r e s t i n g t o students", and then t o a s s i s t i n g students t o see physics as a "powerful way t o understand a wide range o f n a t u r a l phenomena".  3.4 The Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l The b a s i c i s s u e s t o be considered i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n and use of the SD instrument i n the context of the Procedure have been given i n Chapter I I .  The f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n o f the manner i n which (1)  SD instrument was constructed, and (2)  an  the SD data were analyzed i n the  Physics 110 course w i l l serve t o i l l u s t r a t e the pragmatic aspects of these and more t e c h n i c a l i s s u e s i n the development and use o f the SD instrument.  3.4.1  S e l e c t i o n of Objects and Scales The SD o b j e c t s s e l e c t e d were those o b j e c t s toward which a know-  ledge o f s e l e c t e d a f f e c t i v e responses was important i n planning i n s t r u c tional strategies.  The term " o b j e c t " as i t i s employed here i s equivalent  42  t o the term "value o b j e c t " as used by Smith and Meux.  As Smith and Meux  p o i n t out, these (value) objects can be people, events, b e l i e f s , a c t i o n s , 75  arguments, p r a c t i c e s , s t a t e s o f mind, e t c . Two types o f objects were i d e n t i f i e d .  The f i r s t type i d e n t i f i e d  c o n s i s t e d o f the objects r e f e r r e d t o i n the a f f e c t i v e goals e l i c i t e d from the course r a t i o n a l e , s p e c i f i c a l l y Physics,  Problem  Solving,  and  Natural  The second type o f objects i d e n t i f i e d were those t h a t were  Phenomena.  c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the f i r s t type, but not mentioned e x p l i c i t l y i n the rationale.  This second type was s e l e c t e d on two bases: (1) the a f f e c t i v e  responses toward them were expected t o i n f l u e n c e s t r o n g l y the a f f e c t i v e responses t o the f i r s t type o f objects (re: Fishbein's theory of a s s o c i a t e d objects —  S e c t i o n 2.2.1), (2) the i n f l u e n c e o f these a f f e c t i v e responses  was b e l i e v e d t o be s u s c e p t i b l e t o change ( i f necessary) through the a c t i o n s of the course i n s t r u c t o r . The objects o f the second type were My Physics  Course,  Physics  110.  My Previous  Intellectual  Physics  Instructor,  and  Previous  My Expectations  Toward  was a l s o i n c l u d e d as an SD object  Excitement  but had no relevance t o the educational problem addressed by the Procedure. This object was i n c l u d e d t o t e s t an independent hypothesis w i t h i n the Physics 110 course e v a l u a t i o n study. The scales were s e l e c t e d t o represent the a f f e c t i v e responses t o ward the objects r e f e r r e d t o i n the a f f e c t i v e goals.  Several o f these  b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v a l scales were constructed d i r e c t l y from a d j e c t i v e s found i n the discussions o f the course's a f f e c t i v e goals i n the course r a t i o n a l e . These scales were interesting exciting  - never  unimportant,  - not  intellectually  valuable  - worthless  interesting,  exciting, and 43  sometimes  beautiful  understandable  - ugly,  intellectually important  - mysterious.  Others  were constructed t o capture t h e essence o f a d e s i r e d a f f e c t i v e response. To determine how "powerful" students f e l t physics was, t h e s c a l e s strong weak, large  - small,  and wide  were included.  - narrow  students' a p p l i c a t i o n , understanding  To r e f l e c t the  o r awareness o f t h e s t r u c t u r e i n  and coirimonality between n a t u r a l phenomena, the scales oriented principles  - oriented  toward  intuitive,  and c l a r i f i e s - complicates  -  f a c t s , r a t i o n a l - miraculous,  toward  theoretical -  were included. To explore various  f a c e t s o f how enjoyable the students f e l t physics was- r.he scales always never  fun, nice  encouraging for  - awful,  rewarding  - discouraging,  initiative  - unrewarding,  and opportunity  never  dull  - always  for i n i t i a t i v e - no  were s e l e c t e d i n a d d i t i o n t o those d i r e c t l y  should  for society, be guided  needed  by society  by society — should  - not needed not be guided  constructed  by society, by society  dull,  opportunity  from a d j e c t i v e s i n the r a t i o n a l e . The s c a l e s b e n e f i c i a l for society harmful  fun -  -  and  were i n c l u d e d  t o r e f l e c t the students' views on the s o c i e t a l b e n e f i t s o f physics and the a c c o u n t a b i l i t y o f physics t o s o c i e t y .  These considerations are aspects  of the r a t i o n a l e statements t h a t "Physics i s an e n t e r p r i s e o f s o c i e t y w i t h important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r human welfare". t r i c k y , easy  - d i f f i c u l t , challenging  - not challenging,  the p r e v i o u s l y discussed scales understandable complicates  The scales straight  - mysterious,  forward  together w i t h and c l a r i f i e s -  were i n c l u d e d t o determine how comprehensible students saw  p h y s i c s , n a t u r a l phenomena, and problem s o l v i n g as being.  The i n s t r u c t o r  f e l t that students' enjoyment o f o r I n t e r e s t i n physics was a f u n c t i o n o f how comprehensible the students found physics t o be. As discussed i n Chapter I I , s e v e r a l o f Osgood's standard scales were a l s o i n c l u d e d as a p o s s i b l e a i d i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e c l u s t e r 44  -  ings o f the o r i g i n a l scales developed f o r t h i s study.  Scales were  chosen which (1) were e s t a b l i s h e d as representative o f the e v a l u a t i v e , a c t i v i t y , and potency f a c t o r s , those f a c t o r s most commonly found i n SD s t u d i e s , and ( 2 ) r e f l e c t e d as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e the a f f e c t i v e responses o f concern t o the i n s t r u c t o r . At l e a s t three well-known s c a l e s were added t o represent each o f these dimensions, i f such r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s c a l e s were not already present. applicable  The scales good - bad, necessary  - not applicable,  meaningless  efficient  - inefficient,  - unnecessary,  and meaningful -  were i n c l u d e d t o give added r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o the e v a l u a t i v e  dimension, and the scales passive  - active,  dead - alive,  moving -  and slow - fast were used t o c h a r a c t e r i z e the a c t i v i t y dimension.  still, The  potency dimension was already s u f f i c i e n t l y represented by the three scales s e l e c t e d t o assess the "power" o f p h y s i c s . The f i n a l form o f the SD instrument (Appendix B) consisted.of seven o b j e c t s , each followed by the same 34 s c a l e s .  The scales were  randomly arranged w i t h respect t o both t h e i r p o l a r i t y (whether the p o s i t i v e response appeared on the r i g h t o r l e f t end o f the scale) and t h e i r order o f presentation.  For the purposes of the Procedure i t was  not necessary t o have the same set o f scales f o l l o w i n g each concept.  This  p r a c t i c e was e l e c t e d however, s i n c e i t allowed the responses t o d i f f e r e n t objects t o be compared i n a common f a c t o r (semantic.) space, a method o f a n a l y s i s that was undertaken i n the more general e v a l u a t i o n study o f the 77 Physics 110 c o u r s e . 11  3.4.2 I n s t r u c t i o n s t o Students f o r Responding t o the SD The SD instrument was administered t o the Physics 110 c l a s s during  45  the f i r s t c l a s s l e c t u r e of the year.  P r i n t e d i n s t r u c t i o n s (Appendix B)  for completing the instrument accompanied each student's copy.  In  a d d i t i o n , these i n s t r u c t i o n s were d i s p l a y e d by an overhead p r o j e c t o r and were read verbatim t o the c l a s s .  The i n s t r u c t i o n s given were t y p i c a l o f  standard SD i n s t r u c t i o n s , designed t o (1) i n d i c a t e the purpose of the instrument, ( 2 ) o r i e n t students t o the manner i n which they should approach the instrument, (3) d e f i n e the v e r b a l meaning of the seven scale p o s i t i o n s , and (4) a l l o w students t o respond and react t o a sample e x e r c i s e .  The  v e r b a l meanings a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the seven s c a l e p o s i t i o n s have e m p i r i c a l l y been found t o c l o s e l y approximate a r a t i o s c a l e .  The r a t i o s c a l e  assumption i s made i n the method o f a n a l y s i n g the responses.  3.4.3 T e c h n i c a l Processing of Students' Raw Data Responses The SD Instrument o f seven o b j e c t s and 34 s c a l e s was p r i n t e d on custom designed I.B.M. o p t i c a l scan sheets t o permit student responses to be mechanically recorded on computer cards by the I.B.M. 1230 O p t i c a l Scanner.  The o p t i c a l scanning machine w i l l read and punch data i n a  v a r i e t y o f convenient formats, and can be i n s t r u c t e d t o check the response sheets f o r blanks o r m u l t i p l e responses.  This scanning oper-  a t i o n i s an accurate and e f f i c i e n t s u b s t i t u t e f o r the process o f manually key punching responses, and, f o r the most p a r t , the process of hand checking f o r i n v a l i d responses. In t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n i t was most convenient t o have a student's responses t o the 34 s c a l e s under each object punched on one data card. Those scan sheets w i t h two objects were t h e r e f o r e processed through the o p t i c a l scanner twice.  Each time the responses t o only one of the two  objects were read and recorded. 46  By v i r t u e o f the way i n which the o p t i c a l scan sheets were custom designed f o r use i n the SD format, the seven p o s s i b l e responses which correspond t o the seven SD scale p o s i t i o n s from l e f t t o r i g h t were read and recorded on a data card as 2,3,4,0,5,6, o r 7-  These numbers were  l a t e r transformed t o the consecutive i n t e r g e r s -3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3 f o r scales whose p o s i t i v e anchor was on the r i g h t and .3,2,1,0,-1,-2,-3 f o r scales whose p o s i t i v e anchor was on the l e f t .  This p r a c t i c e conformed  t o the r a t i o - s c a l e p r i n c i p l e , and f o r i n t e r p r e t i v e purposes associated the " n e u t r a l " scale p o s i t i o n w i t h the number "0".  3.4.4 SD Data A n a l y s i s The a f f e c t i v e responses o f the students t o the objects presented 79  were o p e r a t i o n a l l y defined i n S e c t i o n 2.3.2 i n terms o f f a c t o r scores. For the purposes o f the Procedure t h e r e f o r e , the a n a l y s i s of. the students' responses t o the I n d i v i d u a l scales had t o y i e l d (1) the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e of the scales f o r each object and (2) the students' scores on.the f a c t o r s determined.  Once the f a c t o r s underlying the sets o f scales were i d e n t i f i e d ,  the students' scores on these f a c t o r s were r e a d i l y obtainable computer programs.  from standard  The substance o f the problem o f i d e n t i f y i n g the a f f e c -  t i v e responses was t h e _ i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the most meaningfully or i n t e r pretable f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e .  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t r u c t u r e demanded a  study o f v a r y i n g f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s derived from (1) the a p p l i c a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques and models o r (2) the s e l e c t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t parameter values w i t h i n a p p l i c a t i o n s o f the same technique o r model.  47  Oblique as w e l l as orthogonal f a c t o r a n a l y t i c procedures were performed i n the study o f the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s o f the Physics 110 data. The orthogonal procedures were d i s t i n c t l y superior i n d e f i n i n g more meaningful factors.  The orthogonal procedures performed were p r i n c i p a l comp-  onents a n a l y s i s , p r i n c i p a l a x i s common f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , and image a n a l y s i s , a l l followed by varimax r o t a t i o n .  These analyses were performed on both  c o r r e l a t i o n and covariance matrices.  Among these procedures, the p r i n c i p a l  components o f the c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s , r o t a t e d t o the varimax c r i t e r i o n , were found t o be most c l e a r l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e . Since the a p p l i c a t i o n o f f a c t o r a n a l y t i c procedures t o SD data i s not the main focus o f t h i s study, and since the r e s u l t s j u s t c i t e d support the common p r a c t i c e o f analyzing SD data by p r i n c i p a l component  80 and varimax a n a l y s i s ,  the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n o f the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s  of the SD data w i l l be l i m i t e d t o the a p p l i c a t i o n o f p r i n c i p a l component and varimax r o t a t i o n procedures. 3.4.5- P r i n c i p a l Component and Varimax A n a l y s i s o f SD Data The SD generates a three dimensional a r r a y , o r cube o f data f o r N subjects responding t o each o f 0 objects on S scales ( P i g . 5a).  In  t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f the SD, approximately 700 students responded t o each of seven objects on' a set o f 34 s c a l e s .  For the purpose o f i l l u s t r a t i n g  the e f f i c a c y o f the Procedure, the responses o f the f i r s t 200 students l i s t e d a l p h a b e t i c a l l y were used.  The responses o f t h e next 200 students  l i s t e d a l p h a b e t i c a l l y were a l s o analyzed f o r the purpose of examining the s t a b i l i t y o f the scale f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s over d i f f e r e n t groups. These, groups w i l l be r e s p e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as Group A and Group B. The.results discussed i n t h i s chapter w i l l be based on Group A data.  48  Scales  Cross v a l i d a t i o n of the "types" i s not c e n t r a l t o the Procedure since i n p r a c t i c e t h i s task i s not l i k e l y t o be undertaken by the i n s t r u c tor.  I n developing the Procedure however, cross v a l i d a t i o n of "types"  could have some supportive value.  This t a s k was undertaken by c r e a t i n g  two d i f f e r e n t groups through a random d i v i s i o n o f 400 students and subj e c t i n g these two groups t o a Q-analysis.  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s  are reported i n Appendix H. P r i n c i p a l component a n a l y s i s , l i k e most t r a d i t i o n a l f a c t o r a n a l y t i c models, i s a two dimensional model, and- i s therefore not d i r e c t l y a p p l i c able t o the three dimensional matrix of SD data.  Recently, "Three-mode  Factor A n a l y s i s " has been developed by Tucker as a s o l u t i o n of t h i s 8l problem, but t h i s development was not a v a i l a b l e t o the i n v e s t i g a t o r . As an a l t e r n a t i v e , Miron and Osgood discuss three ways of c o l l a p s i n g one of the dimensions o f the SD data matrix so that t r a d i t i o n a l p r i n c i p a l component or other f a c t o r models can be a p p l i e d .  These techniques  i n v o l v e s t r i n g i n g out, summation, or averaging procedures, 82  stringing  out being the most c o n s i s t e n t l y employed-in'SD s t u d i e s .  These three  techniques and three-mode a n a l y s i s a l l provide a corrmon s c a l e f a c t o r structure. In the present study, two procedures f o r reducing the three dime n s i o n a l array l e d t o meaningful f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s . The f i r s t was  the  s t r i n g i n g out procedure, depicted i n F i g . 5b, where the observations on each subject by object combination are t r e a t e d as unique observations or scores even though these observations are based on the repeated use o f a set of s c a l e s .  The second procedure was t o analyse the students'  responses t o the s c a l e s under each concept s e p a r a t e l y , and thereby a r r i v e 50  at a unique scale f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e f o r each concept.  These unique f a c t o r  s t r u c t u r e s , as l i s t e d i n Appendix C, were s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t t o i n d i c a t e that scale - object i n t e r a c t i o n was  e x i s t e n t and i t s e f f e c t s on  the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s should not be ignored or l o s t as they were i n the s t r i n g i n g out procedure.  I t was  decided therefore that f o r the purpose  of d e f i n i n g the a f f e c t i v e responses o f concern i n t h i s study,'unique f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s f o r each object would be determined.  In a d d i t i o n , f o r  the purposes of the procedure i t i s not necessary to force a common set of p r i n c i p a l conponents on a l l objects. The  f i n a l c r i t e r i o n f o r s e l e c t i n g the number of p r i n c i p a l comp-  onents t o be r o t a t e d t o the varimax c r i t e r i o n f o r a given concept was  to  s e l e c t that number o f f a c t o r s which gave the most meaningful or i n t e r pretable f a c t o r s . IOI  _cu_ii  The most meaningful s t r u c t u r e was  xo._.i_w_ ,  xn  uiuci'  __  n _ g i i x o u u c wx  whose f a c t o r loadings exceeded .30  i d e n t i f i e d by  xi_a.__.ng,,  i n magnitude.  wiuoc  list-  ___x_o  Since i n an orthogonal  a n a l y s i s the p r o p o r t i o n of f a c t o r variance a t t r i b u t a b l e t o a scale i s equal t o the square of the scale's f a c t o r loading on that f a c t o r , judgments of meaningful c l u s t e r i n g were based on a study o f the most h i g h l y loaded s c a l e s . Two  other commonly used c r i t e r i a f o r determining the number o f  f a c t o r s t o r e t a i n f o r r o t a t i o n were a l s o used i n the i n i t i a l stages of the a n a l y s i s of the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s .  These and other c r i t e r i a f o r  s e l e c t i n g the number of f a c t o r s t o r o t a t e are discussed by K a i s e r  and  84 also by C a t t e l l .  I n the f i r s t f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the scale i n t e r -  c o r r e l a t i o n matrices f o r each concept, the c r i t e r i o n of r e t a i n i n g and r o t a t i n g f a c t o r s w i t h eigenvalues greater than 1.00  51  was  employed.  From  t h i s a n a l y s i s the eigenvalues were inspected i n order t o apply a second criterion —  namely r o t a t i n g only those f a c t o r s . preceding the p o i n t at  which the r a t i o s of the ordered eigenvalues approach a constant,  This  p o i n t can be determined g r a p h i c a l l y by p l o t t i n g the eigenvalue as ordinate against the o r d i n a l value of the eigenvalue as a b s c i s s a .  The  c r i t i c a l p o i n t on the r e s u l t i n g l i n e beyond which f a c t o r s should be r e j e c t e d i s the point at which the slope of the l i n e becomes constant. The c r i t e r i o n of r o t a t i n g f a c t o r s w i t h eigenvalues greater than one was found t o be most u s e f u l as an I n i t i a l step i n i d e n t i f y i n g the most meaningful f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s f o r the concepts.  The number of  f a c t o r s r o t a t e d f o r each of the seven concepts when this- c r i t e r i o n was . a p p l i e d was e i t h e r t h r e e , f o u r , or f i v e .  The "slope" c r i t e r i o n on the  other hand was found t o be o f l i t t l e use at t h i s time ( i n the subsequent Q-analysis t h i s was not the case however).  With these p a r t i c u l a r sets  of data, the eigenvalue of the f i r s t p r i n c i p a l component was  typically  about three times l a r g e r than the next two, t h r e e , o r four eigenvalues. For the object "Physics" f o r example, the eigenvalues i d e n t i f i e d by the i n i t i a l a n a l y s i s were 6.39,  2.44, 1.-99, 1-62.  I f the "slope" c r i t e r i o n  had been a p p l i e d t o these values, only one f a c t o r might have been r e t a i n e d , d e f i n i n g the SD space as being e s s e n t i a l l y unidimensional.  I n t h i s study,  however, i t was e m p i r i c a l l y found t h a t upon r o t a t i o n w i t h two or three other f a c t o r s the variance accounted f o r by t h i s predominant f a c t o r , an e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r , was shared w i t h the a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s .  In addition,  the f a c t o r s generated were w i t h minor exception meaningful c l u s t e r s o f scales.  Table 2 d e p i c t s the percentage of t o t a l variance accounted f o r  by the three s c a l e f a c t o r s o f the concept "Physics" before and a f t e r  52  rotation.  These r e s u l t s are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f those obtained f o r the  other concepts.  A f t e r r o t a t i o n the e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r s t i l l accounted  f o r most o f the v a r i a n c e , but not overwhelmingly so.  TABLE 2  PERCENTAGE OP TOTAL SCORE VARIANCE ACCOUNTED FOR BY EACH PRINCIPAL COMPONENT AND VARIMAX SCALE FACTOR OF THE OBJECT "PHYSICS" Percentage o f Variance Factor 1  Factor 2  Factor 3  P r i n c i p a l Components  18.82  7.19  5-86  Varimax Factors  13.68  9.68  8.52  (evaluation)  (potency) (comprehension)  The r e s u l t a n t number o f f a c t o r s derived by s e l e c t i n g f o r each object independently  that number o f f a c t o r s which provided the most  meaningful f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e i s depicted i n Table 3.  Three objects had  three s c a l e f a c t o r s , and four objects had four s c a l e f a c t o r s .  Factor  scores were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each student on each o f these s c a l e f a c t o r s . For each o f the objects My Previous Physics  Course  Physics  Instructor  and  My  Previous  one o f the four s c a l e f a c t o r s d i d not represent a mean-  i n g f u l cluster of scales. from f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s .  The scores on these two f a c t o r s were omitted  A t o t a l o f 23 f a c t o r scores remained f o r each  student.  53  TABLE.'3  PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SCORE VARIANCE ACCOUNTED FOR BY EACH VARIMAX FACTOR OF EACH OBJECT  Factor Name Object  Evaluative I  Evaluative I I  Potency  Comprehensibility  9.68  8.52  Physics  13.68  Problem S o l v i n g  12.10 (E )»  12.08 (E )  9.07  7.11  7-36 ( E )  9-91 ( E ^  10.27  7,39  N a t u r a l Phenomena  1  2  2  Other  I n t e l l e c t u a l Excitement  12.22  12.25  7.34  My Previous Physics Course  29-55  10.02  9.64  4.40  My Previous Physics I n s t r u c t o r  36.63 .  8.28  8.19  4.11  My Expectations Toward Physics 110  21.91  - Importance E_ = I n t e r e s t  10.93  12.36  3.4.6  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the Scale  Factors  While the c o n t r i b u t i o n of scales t o f a c t o r s v a r i e d i n t e r n a l l y w i t h i n each f a c t o r from object t o o b j e c t , the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s among objects were very s i m i l a r .  Each object had what Osgood would term a  85 potency - a c t i v i t y or dynamism f a c t o r . strong  - weak, and  The potency scales large  wide - narrow were t y p i c a l l y the h i g h e s t l o a d i n g  w i t h the a c t i v i t y s c a l e s moving - s t i l l , alive and fast  -  - dead, active  - slow making a notable but secondary c o n t r i b u t i o n .  -  small, scales,  passive,  For each  object there was a f a c t o r which s h a l l be termed a comprehensibility f a c t o r , c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the scales understandable difficult,  straight  forward  - tricky,  - miraculous,  easy  and  -  clarifies  -  A l l objects had at l e a s t one e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r w i t h the  complicates.  exception o f Problem Solving factors.  rational  - mysterious,  and  For Problem Solving  Natural  which had two  Phenomena  evaluative  the e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r s p l i t i n t o a general  importance e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r and i n t e r e s t o r enjoyment e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r . The general importance e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r was d i s t i n g u i s h e d by the scales important  - unimportant,  needed by  society  for  society,  - not  etc.  valuable needed by  not  never  exciting,  intellectually dull.  society,  Natural  interesting,  exciting  f a c t o r under Natural  beneficial  Phenomena  sometimes  always  -  for  unnecessary, society  -  harmful  - never  - not  intellectually  Phenomena  fun  intellectually  - never  fun,  exciting  and  never  dull  -  had a s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r  h i g h l i g h t e d by the scales interesting lectually  necessary  The i n t e r e s t e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r was defined by the  s c a l e s interesting.-  always  - worthless,  interesting, exciting.  and  sometimes  intel-  The second e v a l u a t i v e  can best be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a s o c i e t a l  e v a l u a t i o n f a c t o r , d i s t i n g u i s h e d by the scales beneficial  55  for  society  -  harmful  for society,  valuable  - worthless,  society  - not needed by society.  good - bad, and needed by  The s i n g l e e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r associated  w i t h the remaining f i v e objects was simply a combination o f the s c a l e s w i t h i n the general importance, s o c i e t a l o r i n t e r e s t e v a l u a t i o n f a c t o r s . As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, the e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r , o r combination o f e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r s where there were'two, accounted f o r more t o t a l score variance than any other f a c t o r .  With two exceptions, the potency - a c t i v i t y  f a c t o r ranked second i n t h i s regard.  These r e s u l t s can be seen i n Table 3-  This predominance o f the e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r was a r e s u l t o f the large number o f e v a l u a t i v e scales on the SD which i n t u r n r e f l e c t e d the i n s t r u c t o r ' s great concern over students' e v a l u a t i v e responses toward • p h y s i c s , problem s o l v i n g and n a t u r a l phenomena.  3.4.7 R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Factor Scores The 23 a f f e c t i v e scores f o r the 200 students i n Group A were themselves subjected t o a p r i n c i p a l component a n a l y s i s .  The three varimax  f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d and d i s p l a y e d i n Table 4 c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e t h a t t h e same a f f e c t i v e responses t o d i f f e r e n t objects had high c o r r e l a t i o n coe f f i c i e n t s ( i . e . , f a c t o r loadings) w i t h the same f a c t o r .  Alternately  s t a t e d , students' responses on the underlying dimensions o f comprehens i b i l i t y , potency, and e v a l u a t i o n across objects were not independent. F a c t o r I i n Table 4 i l l u s t r a t e s that the students' scores on the compreh e n s i b i l i t y dimension across objects were q u i t e h i g h l y r e l a t e d .  Factors  I I and I I I r e s p e c t i v e l y I l l u s t r a t e the same r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e x i s t f o r scores on the potency and e v a l u a t i v e dimensions.  These f i n d i n g s are  most consistent w i t h the p r e d i c t i o n o f Fishbein's theory t h a t the a f f e c -  56  TABLE 4  VARIMAX FACTOR STRUCTURE OF AFFECTIVE RATINGS* Loadings  '  Object  A f f e c t i v e Response  FACTOR I .829 .769 .738 .679 .614 .491 .341  Physics My Previous Physics Course Problem S o l v i n g My Expectations toward Physics 110 My Previous Physics I n s t r u c t o r Natural Phenomena I n t e l l e c t u a l Excitement  Comprehensibility Comprehensibility Comprehensibility Comprehensibility Comprehensibility Comprehensibility Comprehensibility  Problem S o l v i n g Physics My Expectations toward Physics 110 N a t u r a l Phenomena I n t e l l e c t u a l Excitement My Previous Physics Course My Previous Physics I n s t r u c t o r  Potency Potency Potency Potency Potency Potency Potency  Physics My Previous Physics Course My Expectations toward Physics 110 My Previous Physics I n s t r u c t o r Problem S o l v i n g Problem S o l v i n g  Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation E v a l u a t i o n (Importance) Evaluation (Interest)  FACTOR I I .760 .742 .711 .660 .653 .619 .349  FACTOR I I I .807 .758 .616 .590 .540 .369  * The a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s "Natural Phenomena are i n t e r e s t i n g " and "Natural Phenomena are important" and the r a t i n g s o f i n t e l l e c t u a l excitement on the e v a l u a t i v e dimension d i d not possess s i g n i f i c a n t loadings on these factors.  57  t i v e r a t i n g s given c l o s e l y associated objects w i l l themselves be r e l a t e d . While not suggesting causal r e l a t i o n s h i p s , these f i n d i n g s do point out that students possess s i m i l a r f e e l i n g s toward the objects r e f e r r e d t o i n the a f f e c t i v e goals (physics,  problem  solving  and natural  the i n s t r u c t i o n a l o r r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s (My Previous Previous  Physics  Instructor,  and My -Expectations  and  phenomena)  Physics  Course,  Toward Physics  My  110).  3.4.8 S e l e c t i o n o f A f f e c t i v e Responses f o r the P r o f i l e A n a l y s i s Of the 23 a f f e c t i v e responses obtained, nine were r e t a i n e d t o define the p r o f i l e s upon which s i m i l a r "types" o f students were i d e n t i f i e d . P r e l i m i n a r y p r o f i l e analyses employing 15 o r more a f f e c t i v e responses revealed serious d i f f i c u l t i e s i n i n t e r p r e t i n g p r o f i l e s due t o the large numbers o f v a r i a b l e s that had t o be taken i n t o account.  F o r the purposes  of i l l u s t r a t i n g the Procedure i t was t h e r e f o r e decided t o reduce the membership on the p r o f i l e s t o only those scores which r e f l e c t t h e students' incoming status on the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s r e f e r r e d t o i n the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course.  On t h i s b a s i s , 14 a f f e c t i v e scores were omitted  from the p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s .  T h e i r omission i s a d d i t i o n a l l y supported  by the f o l l o w i n g considerations: .1. A f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s which were meaningful but unrelated t o the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course were created by asking students t o respond t o the same s e t o f 34 scales under each SD object.  F o r example, while a f f e c t i v e  scores r e l a t i n g t o the importance and potency o f n a t u r a l phenomena were obtained, these r a t i n g s are not mentioned among the a f f e c t i v e goals.  58  2 . A f f e c t i v e scores toward the object  were not p e r t i n e n t t o the goals of  Excitement  the course. lectual  Section  intellectual  The r a t i o n a l e f o r i n c l u d i n g  Excitement  intel-  as an SD object i s given i n  3.4.1.  3 . A f f e c t i v e responses toward the " r e l a t e d " objects,, were found i n S e c t i o n 3 . 4 . 7 t o be c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the a f f e c t i v e responses t o the objects r e f e r r e d t o i n the a f f e c t i v e g o a l s , and hence, provide l i t t l e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n about the students. The above considerations support the omission o f c e r t a i n a f f e c t i v e scores from the students' p r o f i l e s .  The complementary j u s t i f i c a t i o n  f o r the r e t e n t i o n o f the nine remaining a f f e c t i v e scores was based upon the independent judgment o f the author, a physics teacher, and. a. p h y s i c i s t t h a t these a f f e c t i v e responses were d i r e c t l y relevant t o the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course.. The i n s t r u c t i o n s given t o the physics teacher and p h y s i c i s t are i n Appendix I . The nine a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s used f o r d e f i n i n g the students p r o f i l e s were: 1 . E v a l u a t i o n of (importance o f and i n t e r e s t i n ) physics . 2 . Potency o f physics 3 . Comprehension o f p h y s i c s 4 . E v a l u a t i o n (importance) o f problem s o l v i n g 5. Comprehension of problem s o l v i n g 6. Potency o f problem s o l v i n g 7. E v a l u a t i o n o f ( i n t e r e s t i n ) problem s o l v i n g 59  .  .  8. Comprehension o f n a t u r a l phenomena 9. E v a l u a t i o n o f ( i n t e r e s t i n ) n a t u r a l phenomena Consistent w i t h Osgood's a n a l y s i s o f SD data, the terms " e v a l u a t i o n " , "potency", and "comprehension" were s e l e c t e d each t o c h a r a c t e r i z e a p s y c h o l o g i c a l dimension underlying a s e t o f c l o s e l y r e l a t e d s c a l e s .  The  s c a l e composition o f each o f these dimensions i s d i s p l a y e d i n Appendix C.  3.4.9 The E f f e c t s o f the Number o f P r o f i l e V a r i a b l e s on the I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f Student Types The number o f scores (n) on the p r o f i l e s has a d i r e c t l i m i t i n g e f f e c t on the number o f c l u s t e r s of students that can be i d e n t i f i e d i n the ensuing Q-analysis.  I f a Q-analysis i s performed on the p r o f i l e s o f  n v a r i a b l e s f o r N s u b j e c t s , and n i s l e s s than N, then the maximum number of f a c t o r s that can be i d e n t i f i e d i s one l e s s than the number o f v a r i a b l e s on the p r o f i l e s , o r n-1. The a l g e b r a i c b a s i s f o r t h i s r e s u l t i s given i n Appendix P. This c o n s t r a i n t created by a small number o f v a r i a b l e s on the p r o f i l e s bears d i r e c t l y on the s i t u a t i o n a t hand where 200 (N) subjects are being c l u s t e r e d on the b a s i s o f nine (n) v a r i a b l e s .  A maximum o f  eight c l u s t e r s of subjects can therefore be d e f i n e d , which creates the danger that these c l u s t e r s may i n f a c t be an a r t i f a c t o f the c o n s t r a i n t , and not a s e t o f eight groups o f persons who are h i g h l y s i m i l a r on a l l of the relevant a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s .  I t i s necessary therefore that  .evidence be gathered supporting the s i m i l a r i t y o f the p r o f i l e s w i t h i n each c l u s t e r .  60  3.5 Q-Analysis of the P r o f i l e s o f A f f e c t i v e Scores The p r o f i l e s o f the nine a f f e c t i v e scores f o r the 200 students i n Group A were subjected t o a Q-analysis through the a p p l i c a t i o n o f Guertin's p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s program.  This program f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d the  types of students w i t h i n Group A I n terms o f t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y o f p r o f i l e s of a f f e c t i v e responses, and then i t . p r o v i d e d i n d i c e s which f a c i l i t a t e d the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f students t o the types i d e n t i f i e d . were the geometric distances  These i n d i c e s  (d) between a student's p r o f i l e and the  modal p a t t e r n of each type.  3.5.1 The P r o f i l e A n a l y s i s Computer Program Guertin's p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s program i s contained and described i n Appendix E.  Table 7 i n Appendix E summarizes the information  i n the form o f p r i n t e d output from the program.  provided  The program i s a s e l f  •contained package i n the sense that a l l procedures w i t h i n t h i s program, i n c l u d i n g decisions regarding the number o f f a c t o r s t o e x t r a c t or r o t a t e , are e s s e n t i a l l y not c o n t r o l l a b l e by the user.  3.5.2 M o d i f i c a t i o n s of the P r o f i l e A n a l y s i s Program Technical m o d i f i c a t i o n s of the p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s program were undertaken t o permit the user t o suppress the p r i n t i n g o f the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix i f i t was not r e q u i r e d (since i t could be a 200 x 200 c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x ) , o r terminate the execution of the program at s e l e c t e d stages of the p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s .  These m o d i f i c a t i o n s , j u s t i f i e d  on a monetary b a s i s , were of unquestionable value, since the p r o f i l e 61  a n a l y s i s of the Physics 110 data r e q u i r e d m u l t i p l e runs o f t h i s program on the same data. Substantive m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f the p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s program were undertaken by the i n v e s t i g a t o r i n an e f f o r t t o give the user more c o n t r o l over the number o f f a c t o r s t o be r o t a t e d i n the i n i t i a l f a c t o r i n g o f the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix and i n each d - a n a l y s i s of the shape f a c t o r s .  The  j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the need of t h i s c o n t r o l was e m p i r i c a l l y based.  For  d i f f e r e n t sets of data the number of f a c t o r s r o t a t e d at each stage by the unmodified program were c o n s i s t e n t l y found t o be f a r i n excess o f the number t h a t would have been r o t a t e d on the b a s i s of the "slope" c r i t e r i o n discussed i n the context o f the SD data a n a l y s i s .  I t was t h e r e -  f o r e suspected t h a t some meaningless, or "chance" f a c t o r s were being i n cluded i n the a n a l y s i s .  I n a d d i t i o n , the consequent l a r g e number o f modal  patterns produced, each of which represented only a few i n d i v i d u a l s , were d i f f i c u l t t o cope w i t h i n the pedagogical context of the Procedure. I n the unmodified program, the number o f f a c t o r s r o t a t e d at each stage of the program was c o n t r o l l e d by c r i t e r i a i n t e r n a l t o the program.  The only c o n t r o l the user had over these c r i t e r i a was through  h i s s e l e c t i o n of the value o f a s i n g l e parameter.  However the value o f  t h i s parameter a l s o served a second important r o l e of determining the c r i t e r i o n value f o r f a c t o r loadings below which p r o f i l e s would not be i n c l u d e d i n the d - a n a l y s i s procedures.  Higher values of the parameter  served t o increase the number of varimax shape f a c t o r s but at the same time reduced the number of p r o f i l e s , i n c l u d e d i n the d - a n a l y s i s o f the. shape f a c t o r s . A procedure was e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t allowed the user three a l t e r -  62  n a t i v e s t o c o n t r o l l i n g the number o f f a c t o r s r o t a t e d .  The user could  (1) l e t the program c o n t r o l the number o f f a c t o r s r o t a t e d a t each stage of the a n a l y s i s , (2) s p e c i f y the number o f f a c t o r s o f the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix that were t o be r o t a t e d , and l e t the program c o n t r o l the number of f a c t o r s t o be r o t a t e d i n each d - a n a l y s i s , o r (3) s p e c i f y the number of f a c t o r s t o be r o t a t e d a t each stage i n the program.  3.5.3  The Use o f the Modified Program The second and t h i r d a l t e r n a t i v e s described above were employed  i n the a n a l y s i s o f the Physics 110 Group A data. c r i b e d i n point form i n Appendix G.  This process i s des-  A s e r i e s of three consecutive runs  of the p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s program was needed.  The parameters s e t i n the  second and t h i r d runs were dependent upon t h e magnitude o f the eigenvalues r e s p e c t i v e l y derived from the f i r s t and second runs. Hie purpose o f the f i r s t run o f the program was t o determine the eigenvalues of the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix.  To terminate the execution o f  the program a f t e r these data were produced, the second a l t e r n a t i v e was employed and the program was i n s t r u c t e d t o r o t a t e no f a c t o r s from the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix.  No varimax shape f a c t o r s were produced and con-  sequently no d-analyses  were p o s s i b l e .  The program was then run a  second time and the second a l t e r n a t i v e was again employed.  This time  the program was i n s t r u c t e d t o r o t a t e that number o f shape f a c t o r s s e l e c t e d through a p p l i c a t i o n o f the slope c r i t e r i o n t o the eigenvalues o f the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix.  The program was a l s o i n s t r u c t e d not t o p r i n t out  the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix.  This second run produced the varimax shape  f a c t o r s , and a l s o a d-analysis o f each o f these f a c t o r s .  63  The eigen-  values I n the d-analyses could then be s t u d i e d , again i n terms of the slope c r i t e r i o n , t o determine how many f a c t o r s t o r o t a t e i n each danalysis.  The program was then re-run once more, t h i s time employing  the t h i r d a l t e r n a t i v e , s p e c i f y i n g the number o f f a c t o r s t o be  rotated  i n both the c o r r e l a t i o n and d-analyses.  3.5-4  The Results of the P r o f i l e A n a l y s i s of Group A • Several p r o f i l e analyses e x p l o r i n g the e f f e c t s of i n c l u d i n g  d i f f e r e n t numbers of v a r i a b l e s , r o t a t i n g d i f f e r e n t numbers of f a c t o r s , and d e f i n i n g d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r loading c u t o f f s were performed on Group A before the f i n a l set of modal patterns s e l e c t e d t o represent these students was-identified.  The f i n a l set of two Q-analyses of the p r o f i l e s w i t h  nine v a r i a b l e s d i f f e r e d only through s e t t i n g the parameter f o r f a c t o r l o a d i n g c u t o f f f o r shape family membership at .50  and  .55.  Within the •  three stage, modified p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s procedure o u t l i n e d i n the previous s e c t i o n , the value of t h i s parameter no longer d i r e c t l y c o n t r o l l e d the number of f a c t o r s r o t a t e d , but i t could change the eigenvalues i n the d-analyses by i n c r e a s i n g or decreasing membership i n the shape families.  These changes i n eigenvalues may  i n turn influence  decisions  on the number of f a c t o r s t o r o t a t e i n the d-analyses of the shape f a m i l i e s . This was not the case w i t h Group A data f o r which a predominant s i n g l e f a c t o r was produced i n a l l shape f a m i l i e s f o r f a c t o r l o a d i n g c u t o f f s of  .50 and  .55. A f a c t o r l o a d i n g c u t o f f of .50  f o r shape f a m i l y membership was  s e l e c t e d f o r the f i n a l a n a l y s i s which i d e n t i f i e d the modal patterns s e l e c t e d t o represent the students i n Group A. 64  In t h i s a n a l y s i s , 191  of  200 students were c l a s s i f i e d i n 16 c a t e g o r i e s , whereas f o r a f a c t o r l o a d i n g c u t o f f o f .55, only 169 students were c l a s s i f i e d i n 16 c a t e g o r i e s . S e l e c t i n g the lower o f the f a c t o r l o a d i n g c u t o f f s destroyed the uniqueness o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by doubly c l a s s i f y i n g s e v e r a l students i n more than one shape f a m i l y .  For a f a c t o r l o a d i n g c u t o f f o f .50, 62 students were  c l a s s i f i e d i n two shape f a m i l i e s , whereas f o r a c u t o f f o f .55, only 17 students found dual c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  This i s not a s e r i o u s problem however  s i n c e i n p r a c t i c e the 62 students i n question can be s o r t e d and c l a s s i f i e d by a s s o c i a t i n g each student w i t h that shape f a m i l y d i s p l a y i n g the smaller "d" value between i t s modal p a t t e r n and the student's p r o f i l e . values are provided by Guertin's program.  These  A study o f the nine students  that remained u n c l a s s i f i e d revealed t h e i r p r o f i l e scores t o deviate widely i n l e v e l and d i s p e r s i o n .  These p r o f i l e s would have been accounted  f o r i f more than one f a c t o r had been r e t a i n e d i n each o f the shape f a m i l i e s = The eigenvalues o f the matrix o f c o r r e l a t i o n s between the 200 student p r o f i l e s are l i s t e d i n Table 5.  Using the slope c r i t e r i o n there  i s no c l e a r break i n the descending p a t t e r n o f these e i g h t eigenvalues. The corresponding e i g h t f a c t o r s r e p r e s e n t i n g 99^0% o f the variance i n students over t h e i r a f f e c t i v e scores were t h e r e f o r e r o t a t e d t o the varimax criterion.  From each o f these e i g h t shape f a c t o r s two shape f a m i l i e s o f  p r o f i l e s were e x t r a c t e d . These shape f a m i l i e s were r e s p e c t i v e l y composed of p r o f i l e s which loaded higher than +.50 o r lower than -.50 on each shape f a c t o r . The eigenvalues o f the s i m i l a r i t y matrix $ o f each o f these shape f a m i l i e s are a l s o l i s t e d i n Table 5. t o describe a unidimensional s t r u c t u r e .  65  Each set o f eigenvalues appears  The f a c t o r loadings on the f i r s t  TAELE 5  EIGENVALUES OP THE CORRELATION AND SIMTiARTTY MATRICES  Matrices  •  Eigenvalues  n  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  22.91  21.18  18.04  14.34  12.79  9  10  Correlation Matrix  a  200  43.69  S i m i l a r i t y Matrix  1  31  20.95  2.29  1.06  0.91  0.86  0.73  0.54  0.47  0.39  0.05  S i m i l a r i t y Matrix  2  20  12.26  1.65  0.96  0.67  0.52  0.40  0.18  0.07  0.06  0.02  Similarity Matrix  3  33  21.29  2.68  1.63  1.28  1.10  0.74  0.46  0.34  0.32  0.06  S i m i l a r i t y Matrix  4  11  7.14  2.49  0.54  0.36  0.22  0.01  S i m i l a r i t y Matrix  5  16  9.22  2.53  1.22  0.78  0.34  0.14  0.12  0.05  0.04  0.03  Similarity Matrix  6  18  11.93  1.21  0.98  0.52  0.41  0.24  0.22  0.17  0.03  S i m i l a r i t y Matrix  7  13  8.62  1.21  0.72  0.48  0.30  0.13  0.05  S i m i l a r i t y Matrix  8  12  5.91  1.62  1.16  0.78  0.48'  0.29  0.21  39.41 '26.51  0.04  ^ i g h t eigenvalues were reported from the c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . The corresponding p r i n c i p a l a x i s f a c t o r s accounted f o r 99 .40$ o f the t o t a l v a r i a t i o n o f scores on the 200 p r o f i l e s .  p r i n c i p a l a x i s f o r each shape f a m i l y average approximately  .80.  The  members of the shape f a m i l i e s d i d not t h e r e f o r e appear d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on the b a s i s of d i f f e r e n c e s i n the l e v e l or d i s p e r s i o n of t h e i r p r o f i l e s o f scores. To check the v a l i d i t y of the observation regarding the unidimens i o n a b i l i t y of the shape f a m i l i e s , analyses were performed i n which the dominant f i r s t p r i n c i p a l axes were r o t a t e d w i t h one or more a d d i t i o n a l axes (the number defined by the eigenvalue; greater than one  criterion).  These analyses d i d spread the variance of the f i r s t a x i s , but i t s main e f f e c t was t o produce p r o f i l e loadings i n the range .50 t o .60 on each a x i s r o t a t e d , as compared t o loadings i n the range .60 t o .90 on the nonrotated f i r s t p r i n c i p a l a x i s .  These axes were not t h e r e f o r e rep-  r e s e n t a t i v e o f independent c l u s t e r s o f p r o f i l e s w i t h i n the shape f a m i l i e s .  3.5.5  The Nature of the Types Table 6 and F i g . 6a through 6h r e s p e c t i v e l y depict numerically  and then g r a p h i c a l l y the modal p a t t e r n s f o r the types o f students i d e n t i f i e d i n Group A.  In F i g . 6a through F i g . 6h the two modal patterns  of each shape f a c t o r are superimposed t o p o i n t out the l o g i c a l l y opposite character o f the a f f e c t i v e responses they represent.  The meaningfulness  of the modal patterns i s supported by the observation that on most modal patterns common sense r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t between those a f f e c t i v e responses which are e i t h e r h i g h l y p o s i t i v e o r h i g h l y negative.  For example, modal  p a t t e r n no. 2 represents a group o f students whose e v a l u a t i v e response toward physics  i s highly positive.  toward problem  solving  and  natural  In a d d i t i o n , t h e i r e v a l u a t i v e responses phenomena  are a l s o p o s i t i v e .  89 CD CD  -J-^l  CJ\CT\  VJ1VJ1  4-rJ-r  COCO  fV) hJ  Er3-£  M h-  1  fD fD  g M  CO  o o fD co  & ct fD  fD  3  ct  co fD  3 co fD &  ct tr CD c+  g-  fD • CO  s:  ct tr M  3fD  P O  tr  — I*  — I  1—*  — I  vji^q  4_-a\  c o VJI  1  CT\ c o  1  M  I—  ro t  MCO  ^ $  M  1  oro  g P o 3, d - Q_ & ct p  U J H  fD fD 4  M  g :  co  g C_  pN fD P-  ^ p> O  ct  o 4  CO  I O O ro  I  I I I O M  xr  Oh-  M  ro  O O VJIJ_  (V) P O  1  I  II  O O -Cr-O VD o  I  CA  I  I  O O  O O  ro C A  -cr  Evaluation  O O  o  M  _  _  covji -CrCO  —q—J  O O  H O  O A VJI ro C A  -CrCO C A rO M - t r VJI ro  I I  O O  O O  CAO M VJI  C O M oo—-J  M M CACO  COCO ro  O O  O O  M M  O O  O O  M O -CrVO  l\) H IV) C A  I— O VJ1  o o  r o o  O O  M M  VJI O  -CrM  -CrCO  M vo  CACO  u i vo  1  O O  M  O O  II  O O  VD -Cr C O C O  O O  II  I  I  •• •  VO CO M CO -Cr CO VO VO  I  I  ro c o  I I  I  O O  M  O  -Cr r\J M M  M -Cr —-J VO  O H  I  O O cova CO ro  Potency  co M O CO  Comprehensibility  o  o  I  fD co  >-+>  O fD  4 4  fD  I  I  I  I  I  I  O O  I  I  O O  O M  O O  M C A O -O  M  CA O  O M  o r o  ro —q  v o ro  I  O  I  I  I  O O M VJI VJI "~^3  M O M CA -CrVO  O O C O O M C A  O O O O O O -Cr VJI C O O W ro C A  O O -Cr O O M  M O O VO -Cr -Cr  O O vjiro  O O vouj  O O M M  O O C A ro  O O CA-<I  O O vo-cr  M O roM  O M  o-tr  rouj-<ivo  ro —q  -<i M  ro V O  VJI M  VJICO  I I  I  1 0 0 ro c o C O M  I  I  r o o p w rovo  II  I  I  I  I I  I  l  o o o o o o o o o o o o  - o o M co C O M c o vo  C O M vo—d C A — . ro VJI  CO  o  ro ro C A H  O O 0 0 VDVO  I  Evaluation (Importance)  C Ao COCA  r o o M M  Comprehensibility  8-  00 CA  M fD  3  Potency  CO  o ,3  Evaluation (Interest)  I 51  CO fD  >-b P O ct O 4  I  I I  O M -Cr O COrO  O O M ro V O M  1  I  O O O O MVJI CACA V O - C r - J O  I M O C O VJI VOVO  I  I  O O O O O CO VO C A -Cr C A -<] CO  I O O CA CA o v o  I  O O -CrCA COVJ1  I O O O O O VO CA-Cr O O O V J J C O  I I O O o o oo ro  O O rviM o o  O O . O O VJI -tr ro -—a coco V O -<I  I O O coro VJ1M  CO  Comprehensibility  M TJ  Evaluation (Interest)  tr fD  p  PHYSICS >> -P •H rH •H  £) •H W  sn o  SH  CD  O  C  0 -P  o  PH  - 2  -c CD SH  O  o  PROBLEM SOLVING  NATURAL PHENOMENA  >3  >5  •P •H rH •H  •p  •H rH •H X3 •H CO  CO  C  CD  4-1  o  SH  CD •P . O  CD  !  o  c  PH  •H CD -P in Ctf CD 3 -P  •a HC > •  - .  Pattern No. 1 No. of Profiles Represented 30 d = .34 Pattern No. 9 No. of Profiles Represented 2 7 d = . 2 8 Fig. 6a.—Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 1 and Group 9-  SH  CD  XI  8  o  O CO •H CD -P SH Cd CD P .-P  PHYSICS  PROBLEM SOLVING  NATURAL PHENOMENA  -1 -  -2 -  P a t t e r n No. 2 — —  No. o f P r o f i l e s Represented 19 3 = .26  P a t t e r n No. 10 No. o f P r o f i l e s Represented 13 d = ..32  P i g . 6 b . — M o d a l Patterns Representing Students i n Group 2 and Group 10.  >5 •P  -p CO  rH  >  '  o C  CD  -P O  PH  CD  PH  *—* CD O  c q o c3  •H  -P  Q,  al  •H  C CD .C  >s  o  >  fa  o  -P  -P  •p  u o  ^—s  •H  •H rH •H  H  .Q  •H CO  o  u  C  -P  -P  U  O •H  C CD x:  mp re  •H rH •H £2 •H CO  c o  NATURAL PHENOMENA  PROBLEM SOLVING  PHYSICS  G  CD  eg  CO CD CD  -P O P-r  •H £2 •H CO  C  8 o o  2 -  1 -  A  \  \ -1 -  4  -2 P a t t e r n No.  3 No. o f P r o f i l e s Represented 32 d = .19  P a t t e r n No. 11 No. o f P r o f i l e s Represented 21 d = .43 P i g . 6 c . — M o d a l Patterns Representing Students I n Group 3 and Group 11.  -p ra CD  PHYSICS  PROBLEM SOLVING  >s  -P  o •H -p cd  C  >5  o C  0  -P  o  P-l  CD  4-1 0  ?H  o o  pi  •P  •H rH •H fl CO  NATURAL PHENOMENA  0  g  •H  o  •H rH •H 42 •H  •H rH •H  CO  C O  C  o  0  t O  o  •H O C  0  -P  o  PH  -P  cd  fl CO  0 H 0  3 -P rH iH Cti  v--1  -2 4 No. o f P r o f i l e s Represented 11 d = .23  P a t t e r n No. 12 No. o f P r o f i l e s Represented  C  0 4H 0  H  > —'  2 -  P a t t e r n No.  co  8 3= .14  P i g . 6d.—Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 4 and Group 12.  O O  C O  -P  -P  EH  rH  C H  •H Cd  Cd  CO  0 0  PHYSICS  PROEIEM SOLVING >5  P  J3  o  > s O  •H  C CD -P O  •s  PL,  •H co C CD  >» P •H iH •H  >3  P •H rH •H  CO  c  g  CD .C CD  o  O O  O  NATURAL PHENOMENA  5H  >5  o C CD P O  C P O CO •H CD  •B ^ n3 <D c H  dctj  2 -  1 —a u>  -1 -  -2 5  No. o f P r o f i l e s Represented 1 5 d = .30  P a t t e r n No. 13  No. o f P r o f i l e s Represented 10 d = .20  P a t t e r n No.  P i g . 6e.—Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 5 and Group 13.  co  C  CD £ CD O O  C P O CO c_ CD 3 -P  > ^  PHYSICS  PROBLEM SOLVING  •H  ^  NATURAL PHENOMENA  -H  -2 Pattern No.  6 No. of Profiles Represented 16 d = .20  Pattern No. 14 -No. of Profiles Represented 12 d = .27 Fig. 6f.—Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 6 and Group 14.  -H  PHYSICS  P a t t e r n No. — —  7  P a t t e r n No. 15  PROBLEM SOLVING  NATURAL PHENOMENA  No. o f P r o f i l e s Represented 12 d = .18 No. o f P r o f i l e s Represented  6 d = .24  F i g . 6 g . — M o d a l Patterns Representing Students i n Group 7 and Group 15.  PHYSICS  PROBLEM SOLVING >3  >>  -P •H rH •H  g  C  CD  •H  o C  H  XI  CD  CD  4-5  O O  >> 4^>  4->  S  N  CD  O  o a  s-gO Cti  P  rH Cti  Q*  EqH  > ^  •rH rH •rl  •H rH •rH  X>  •rH  C 43 O CA  to .  he  fl CO  NATURAL PHENOMENA  CD  U  Q,  o o  >J  o c CD  •H CD 4J Crt CD  3  4^>  4^>  O  PH  2' -  0  -2  -  P a t t e r n No. — —  8  P a t t e r n No. 16  No. o f P r o f i l e s Represented 10 d = . 22 No. o f P r o f i l e s Represented 12 d = .24  P i g . 6 h . — M o d a l Patterns Representing•Students i n Group 8 and Group 16.  fl to C  CD  XI CD Sn O  o  C  -P  o  to  •H CD  4J SH C« CD  P -P dra H >• — c  w  The purpose o f a p p l y i n g the Q-analysis was  (1) t o i d e n t i f y groups  of students whose antecedent responses were s i m i l a r and (2) t o o b t a i n a d e s c r i p t i o n o f each of these groups i n terms o f t h e i r a f f e c t i v e responses. I t was the hypothesis o f t h i s study t h a t these d e s c r i p t i o n s would provide a more o b j e c t i v e b a s i s f o r meeting the problem o f s e l e c t i n g teaching s t r a t e g i e s f o r each group d i r e c t e d toward the f u l f i l l m e n t of a f f e c t i v e goals.  Of most consequence t o the s e l e c t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s  i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of those a f f e c t i v e responses w i t h i n each type which are most incongruent w i t h the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course.  It  i s these a f f e c t i v e responses which set p r i o r i t i e s on or i d e n t i f y the a f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs o f each d i f f e r e n t type.  A c c o r d i n g l y , f o r the  purposes o f s e l e c t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s the types o f students i d e n t i f i e d are best described, i n terms of t h e i r negative a f f e c t i v e responses  d i s p l a y i n g greatest i n c o n g r u i t y w i t h the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course.  3.6 The S e l e c t i o n of S t r a t e g i e s Sixteen types of students have been i d e n t i f i e d i n Group A and on the b a s i s of t h e i r modal patterns can be described i n terms of those a f f e c t i v e responses toward o b j e c t s d i s p l a y i n g greatest i n c o n g r u i t y w i t h the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course.  The f i n a l step i n the Procedure i s  to s e l e c t those s t r a t e g i e s which w i l l best remove these i n c o n g r u i t i e s . The resources used t o guide the s e l e c t i o n of these s t r a t e g i e s are desc r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 2.3.4. For i l l u s t r a t i v e  purposes, s t r a t e g i e s w i l l  be s e l e c t e d f o r the groups of students represented by modal patterns 1 and 9.  These groups w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as Group 1 and Group 9 and  77  now  were s e l e c t e d because they are somewhat opposite i n nature.  As i l l u s t r a t e d  i n P i g . 7a and F i g . 7b the s t r a t e g i e s (S. .) o r groups of moves w i l l  be  defined i n terms of the s i x teaching functions t o be served i n f u l f i l l i n g an e v a l u a t i v e venture, as d e l i n e a t e d by Coombs and Meux.  The  subscript  ( i ) d e p i c t s the teaching f u n c t i o n number, and ( j ) d e p i c t s the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g o f concern.  "  For Group 1 and Group 9, the s t r a t e g i e s w i l l be s e l e c t e d t o provide students w i t h a r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r changing those antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses (R.) toward objects d i s p l a y i n g greatest i n c o n g r u i t y w i t h the Physics 110 a f f e c t i v e course goals.  I n F i g s . 7a and 7b these a f f e c -  t i v e r a t i n g s R^ are c i r c l e d and the corresponding s t r a t e g i e s S^.  are  boxed i n . I t should be r e s t a t e d that the Physics 110 course I n s t r u c t o r d i d not possess the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the "types" i d e n t i f i e d by the Procedure. I f he had been given these d e s c r i p t i o n s , and subsequently i d e n t i f i e d the s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n t o be given t o each group, t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n would have taken place during each group's weekly t u t o r i a l session.  What f o l l o w s  are suggestions f o r s t r a t e g i e s and s e l e c t e d samples o f s t r a t e g i e s t h a t an i n s t r u c t o r might have s e l e c t e d through the guidance of the  resources  described i n Section 2.3.4.  3.6.1  D e s c r i p t i o n o f Group 1 and Group 9 Group 1  I n terms of t h e i r responses on the SD s c a l e s , and  the  relevance o f these responses t o the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s inherent i n the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course, these students can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as seeing physics as potent —  "a powerful (strong, l a r g e , wide) way 78  to  Modal P a t t e r n No. 1  Legend E = evaluation E j = importance E = interest  C: c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y P: potency  2  Strategies An i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategy ( S j j ) i s a s e t o f moves made by the teacher, student, o r both, which serves a given teaching f u n c t i o n ( I through V I ) . A f f e c t i v e Ratings R i t o be Addressed through I n s t r u c t i o n R,  II S  R,  R,  S  I,2.  S  I3  S  S  R, R.  7!  R  X6  S  j7  R  Z8  S  X9  JT4  S  S  XT5  S  S  XT6  s  S  Xf 7  s  •  .  S  S  S  xrs XT9  S  V3  S  ms  S  JV5  m6  S  JT/6  ma-  m9  S  P i g . 7a.—The negative A f f e c t i v e Ratings and Required I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s i d e n t i f i e d by Modal P a t t e r n 1.  S  S  S  JV4  JV7  W8  IV9  S  VI  V 2  S  VI  S  JVI  m4  J U 8  S  V  S M l  m3  S  S  IV  •  H3-  "  1.5  s  H 2  S  L4  S  S  s  xl  III  S  V2  S  V3  S  V4  S  S  S  S  S  Wl  V5  V6  V7  V8  V9  S  S  S  '  VI2  VI3  VI4  V s S  S  S  VI6  VJ7 VI8.  s  VI9  '„  Legend  Modal P a t t e r n No. 9  S: c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y P: potency  E = evaluation E_ = importance E - interest 2  Strategies An i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategy ( S i j ) i s a s e t . o f moves made by the teacher, student, or both, which serves a given teaching f u n c t i o n ( I through V I ) . A f f e c t i v e Ratings R_ t o be Addressed through I n s t r u c t i o n  I xi  S  s  R.  I3  R,  I4  S  R,  I5  S  R s _  R-  J 7  R,  II xri  S  S  _2  S  s  . JJ 3  I9  s  _  7_I  S  S  7J2  s ,  s _  S  JJ/2  IV 3  I/4  S  S  ZT5  S  I7 5  S  S  _6  S  I7 6  S  s „ Jf 7  5  IT 9  Fig. 7b.— T h e negative A f f e c t i v e Ratings and Required I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s i d e n t i f i e d by Modal P a t t e r n 9.  s  m 7  •  s _  17 7  S  i7a  S  _7 9  7l  V2  X4  . _2T6  VI S  I  S -  m 3  S  I8  S  V  IV  S  S  R„  III  S  713  r/4  S  7T4  75  S  7J5  76  S  7J6  s_  s  77  S  7.  S  79  -  -  7J7  S  7J8  S  7J9  understand a wide range o f n a t u r a l phenomena" —  yet incomprehensible  ( d i f f i c u l t , t r i c k y , mysterious, c o m p l i c a t i n g ) . I n a d d i t i o n , these students f e l t problem s o l v i n g was potent —  "a powerful means o f o b t a i n i n g an  understanding o f how physics works" — well.  but again incomprehensible as  To a l e s s e r degree n a t u r a l phenomena were a l s o f e l t t o be incomp-  r e h e n s i b l e , and not i n t e r e s t i n g .  The e v a l u a t i v e responses o f i n t e r e s t  and importance p e r t a i n i n g t o p h y s i c s and problem s o l v i n g were e s s e n t i a l l y neutral. The main a f f e c t i v e t e a c h i n g f u n c t i o n s t o be served f o r t h i s group of students i s t o provide them w i t h a r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r changing their* unfavourable responses t o p h y s i c s , problem s o l v i n g , and n a t u r a l phenomena on the c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y s c a l e s t o more p o s i t i v e responses, and t o change t h e i r r a t i n g o f n a t u r a l phenomena on the i n t e r e s t s c a l e s t o the p o s i t i v e end o f these s c a l e s .  I n terms o f F i g . " a , the i n t e n t i s t o change these  ratings to: R^: Physics I s comprehensible ••  R_: Problem-Solving i s comprehensibie b  R : N a t u r a l Phenomena are comprehensible Q  o  R : N a t u r a l Phenomena are i n t e r e s t i n g Group 9  These students, somewhat opposite i n nature t o those i n  Group 1, p e r c e i v e d p h y s i c s , problem s o l v i n g , and n a t u r a l phenomena t o be comprehensible  (understandable, s t r a i g h t forward, easy, c l a r i f y i n g ) y e t  they f e l t problem s o l v i n g and p h y s i c s t o be impotent.  That i s , they d i d  not f e e l physics was "a powerful way t o understand a wide range o f n a t u r a l phenomena", nor d i d they see problem s o l v i n g as "a powerful means f o r  81  o b t a i n i n g an understanding of how physics works".  L i k e the students i n  Group 1, t h e i r e v a l u a t i v e responses t o Physics and Problem S o l v i n g were essentially neutral. The main a f f e c t i v e teaching functions t o be served f o r t h i s group of students i s t o provide them w i t h a r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r changing t h e i r unfavourable responses t o physics and problem s o l v i n g on the potency scales to more p o s i t i v e responses, r e f l e c t i n g acceptance o f the s t a t e ments : 1. Physics i s a powerful way t o understand a wide range of n a t u r a l phenomena. 2. Problem S o l v i n g i s a powerful means f o r o b t a i n i n g an understanding o f how physics works. I n F i g . 7b,  3.6.2  these statements are i d e n t i f i e d as R_ and  R. g  Sample Teaching S t r a t e g i e s f o r Group 1 F i g . 7a i d e n t i f i e s the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s R , R , R  fi  and R_  as  r e q u i r i n g s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l a t t e n t i o n through the associated sets of s t r a t e g i e s S...  Hie f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n w i l l present sample s t r a t e g i e s  and t h e i r r a t i o n a l e i n terms o f the teaching functions they address. Value Statement R : ?  S  Physics i s Comprehensible  : S t r a t e g i e s f o r I d e n t i f y i n g and C l a r i f y i n g the Value Statement The i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategy f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and c l a r i f y i n g the  value statement might l i k e l y occur i n a l e c t u r e s e t t i n g during a d i s cussion of the o b j e c t i v e s of the course.  Below i s a sample strategy.  For purposes of d i s c u s s i n g t h i s strategy the sentences w i t h i n i t are numbered. 82  (1) One o f the important goals o f t h i s course i s t h a t you come t o see physics as comprehensible. (2) By t h i s I mean that you w i l l see the physics you encounter I n t h i s course as understandable o r s t r a i g h t forward — t h a t i s , you w i l l understand the laws, p r i n c i p l e s , and methods presented by t h i s science i n i t s p u r s u i t t o e x p l a i n the n a t u r a l phenomena we observe. (3) At the end o f t h i s i n t r o d u c t o r y course your personal comprehension of the f i e l d o f physics w i l l o f course be l i m i t e d , but h o p e f u l l y your experience i n t h i s course w i l l leave you w i t h the f e e l i n g t h a t physics i s i n f a c t comprehensible, t h a t i t i s not i n any way mysterious, t r i c k y , d i f f i c u l t , or complicating. This s t r a t e g y i s a combination o f s e v e r a l moves i d e n t i f i e d by Smith, Meux, et a l . Sentence (1) i s a move which i d e n t i f i e s the value object (physics) and the value term (comprehensible).  Sentence (2) i s  a combination of.moves which f i r s t e x p l i c a t e t h e value term ( I . e . , "comprehensible" means understandable o r s t r a i g h t forward), and then describe the value object ( i . e . , "physics" presents laws, p r i n c i p l e s , and methods i n an e f f o r t t o e x p l a i n the n a t u r a l phenomena we observe). Sentence (3) i s a move which again e x p l i c a t e s the value term ( i . e . , "compr e h e n s i b l e " means not mysterious, not t r i c k y , not d i f f i c u l t , and not complicating). S_._:  S t r a t e g i e s f o r Assembling Purported Facts The i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s which assemble f a c t s r e l e v a n t t o  the value statement w i l l take place throughout the course and w i l l be a p a r t o f the s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l treatment given t o Group 1.  This  i n s t r u c t i o n would t h e r e f o r e occur during the t u t o r i a l sessions f o r t h i s group. The value judgment "Physics i s Comprehensible" f a c t s r e l e v a n t t o the " c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y " o f p h y s i c s .  83  must be based on Sample f a c t s a  student could b r i n g t o bear on t h i s i s s u e are: 1. The i n s t r u c t o r ' s d i s p l a y e d understanding o f a sample o f physics laws, p r i n c i p l e s , and methods and h i s ease i n a p p l y i n g these t o e x p l a i n n a t u r a l p h y s i c a l events. 2. The student's experience .in a c t u a l l y understanding the sample of laws, p r i n c i p l e s , and methods presented by the i n s t r u c t o r , and h i s ease i n applying these t o e x p l a i n s e l e c t e d n a t u r a l p h y s i c a l events. 3. The o r i g i n s , causes, or reasons f o r the science of physics i n terms o f the s o c i e t a l or personal need t o understand n a t u r a l phenomena. For t h i s p a r t i c u l a r group of students who i n i t i a l l y f e e l physics i s incomprehensible, the i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis r e l a t i v e t o other groups, could: 1. Present only a "core" group o f laws, p r i n c i p l e s , and methods. 2. P u r p o s e f u l l y s e l e c t explanations and d e r i v a t i o n s o f an a l g e b r a i c nature i n which the l o g i c of the methods o f physics i s d i s p l a y e d and i l l u s t r a t e d through examples which are s e l e c t e d because they act as exemplars or models of. "how physics works". 3. S e l e c t i v e l y apply laws and p r i n c i p l e s t o the explanation o f n a t u r a l phenomena w i t h which students are f a m i l i a r , w i t h a focus on what these laws and p r i n c i p l e s t e l l us about nature. 84  4. Present paradigms w i t h i n physics which d i s p l a y man's e f f o r t s i n the past t o understand the p h y s i c a l phenomena he observed, and provide a comparison o f how these phenomena looked t o man p r i o r t o the explanations o f f e r e d by physics. 5. Pursue d i a g n o s t i c q u e s t i o n i n g o f e x e r c i s e s which • probe and i d e n t i f y the mysterious, o r t r i c k y aspects o f 1, 2, 3  3  and 4 and provide a b a s i s  f o r remedial s t r a t e g i e s t o be defined. I n Smith and Meux's terms, these s t r a t e g i e s w i t h i n the t u t o r i a l s would o f t e n begin w i t h an "instance d e s c r i p t i o n " move i n which an instance of physics (e.g., a law, p r i n c i p l e , a p p l i c a t i o n , . . .) i s described. Through an "instance e v a l u a t i o n " move the i n s t r u c t o r and students could then explore the c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y of t h i s i n s t a n c e , o r they could " i d e n t i f y the r e l a t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s " o f t h i s instance —  f o r example,  the consequences o f t h i s • i n s t a n c e which students i d e n t i f y and understand through d a i l y l i v i n g .  The i n s t r u c t o r , through a " r e l a t i o n a l " move,  could a l s o c i t e a pre-physics explanation f o r consequences i n question, an explanation which i s sharply Incomprehensible i n comparison t o the explanation o f f e r e d by p h y s i c s . S ' m3  S t r a t e g i e s f o r Assessing the Truth o f Purported Facts Since i t i s p r i m a r i l y the experience o f the student which provides  the f a c t s about the c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y o f p h y s i c s , f o r the most p a r t the sample s t r a t e g i e s suggested above are a l s o concerned w i t h the v e r i f i c a t i o n of these f a c t s .  I t i s the student's experience which t e l l s him "Yes,  my i n s t r u c t o r f i n d s physics understandable 85  and s t r a i g h t forward", o r  "Yes, I have been able t o solve a l l these problems d e a l i n g w i t h the r e f r a c t i o n o f l i g h t . " , o r "Without Newton's second law s c i e n t i s t s simply could not provide a l o g i c a l explanation o f why the moon r o t a t e d about the e a r t h . " S  S t r a t e g i e s f o r C l a r i f y i n g the Relevance o f Facts In t h i s instance the relevance o f f a c t s such as those given above  t o the value judgment being made appears obvious, since the f a c t s a l l r e l a t e t o physics and have c l e a r p o s i t i v e o r negative valence w i t h r e s pect t o the r a t i n g o f the comprehensibility o f p h y s i c s . Sy,-: S t r a t e g i e s f o r A r r i v i n g at a Tentative Value D e c i s i o n As Coombs and Meux note, t h i s r e a l l y i s not a d i s t i n c t task at a l l , but i s a culmination o f the preceding f o u r t a s k s .  The i n s t r u c t o r ' s  primary r o l e t h e r e f o r e i s t o provide the student w i t h the appropriate set' o f experiences  ( f a c t s ) which r e l a t e t o the students judgment o f the  comprehensibility o f p h y s i c s . S^..: S t r a t e g i e s f o r T e s t i n g the Value P r i n c i p l e Implied i n the D e c i s i o n In.terms o f the f a c t s o f f e r e d i n support o f t h e students' judgment o f the comprehensibility o f p h y s i c s , the value p r i n c i p l e u n d e r l y i n g t h i s judgment might be "Something i s comprehensible i f I understand i t and my i n s t r u c t o r understands_it."  I n t h e Physics 110 course i t i s u n l i k e l y  that i n s t r u c t i o n would be devoted t o the a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f t h i s value principle.  Rather, i n s t r u c t i o n throughout t h e course would c o n t i n u a l l y  be devoted t o the accumulation o f f a c t s (student experiences) relevant to t h e value judgment derived through the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the value p r i n ciple .  86  In general i t appears t h a t the most d i f f i c u l t yet important i n s t r u c t i o n a l tasks i n addressing the value judgments r e f l e c t e d i n the Physics 110 course a f f e c t i v e goals are (1) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and (2) the v e r i f i c a t i o n o f f a c t s which are r e l e v a n t t o the value judgments.  In  a d d i t i o n , these tasks o f i d e n t i f y i n g and v e r i f y i n g f a c t s appear t o be f u l f i l l e d simultaneously r a t h e r than separately o r s e q u e n t i a l l y .  This i s  f e l t t o be true since the f a c t s r e l e v a n t t o the value judgments i n quest i o n are based on the student's own experience.  A l s o , the value judg-  ments i n question are s p e c i f i c i n nature and hence have few f a c t s r e l e vant t o them.  I n view o f these observations, remaining examples o f  s t r a t e g i e s f o r Groups 1 and 9 w i l l focus on the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and v e r ification of facts. Value Statement R 5 : Problem S o l v i n g i s Comprehensible Value Statement Rg: N a t u r a l Phenomena are Comprehensible The i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s addressing these value judgments would overlap considerably w i t h those addressing "Physics i s comprehensible".  Not only i s the value term the same, but the value objects are  highly related.  The moves s e l e c t e d t o f u l f i l l the teaching f u n c t i o n  " i d e n t i f y and c l a r i f y the value statement" would l i k e l y again i n c l u d e moves which (1) i d e n t i f y the value object and value terms, (2) describe the value o b j e c t , and (3) e x p l i c a t e the value term. The f a c t s the student b r i n g s t o h i s d e c i s i o n regarding the comprehensibility o f problem s o l v i n g w i l l be mainly based on h i s own experience —  how understandable, easy, and s t r a i g h t forward he found the  sample o f problem s o l v i n g s i t u a t i o n s experienced i n the course, and the i n s t r u c t o r ' s d i s p l a y e d understanding o f these s i t u a t i o n s .  87  The s p e c i a l  i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis ( S _ ) p r o v i d i n g these f a c t s should again  focus  XT 5  on the enhancement o f the students' understanding  o f problem s o l v i n g and  might i n v o l v e (1) d i a g n o s t i c e f f o r t s on the p a r t o f the i n s t r u c t o r t o i d e n t i f y and remove the d i f f i c u l t , t r i c k y , o r mysterious aspects o f problem s o l v i n g , (2) a slower pace w i t h more time devoted t o the a n a l y s i s of a given problem s o l v i n g i n s t a n c e , and-(3) the s e l e c t i o n o f problem s o l u t i o n s which a c t as exemplars o f problem s o l v i n g methods g e n e r a l i z a b l e t o other problem s i t u a t i o n s . S i m i l a r considerations e x i s t i n the students' judgment o f the comprehensibility o f n a t u r a l phenomena. (S  Special instructional strategies  ) might emphasize the a p p l i c a t i o n o f physics t o the. explanation of. XT 8  some common, p r e v i o u s l y incomprehensible aspects of n a t u r a l phenomena  —  what causes rainbows o r c o l o r s i n soap o r o i l f i l m s , why there are t i d e s , Vvhy  magnets a t t r a c t some metals and not o t h e r s , why we f e e l c o o l e r when  we are wet, e t c .  Again, the d i s c u s s i o n o f physics' explanation f o r these  phenomena should be d i a g n o s t i c and a n a l y t i c a l i n nature i n an e f f o r t t o i d e n t i f y and resolve any t r i c k y o r mysterious aspects o f the students' understanding  o f these phenomena.  Value Statement R : N a t u r a l Phenomena are I n t e r e s t i n g 9  In the course r a t i o n a l e the i n s t r u c t o r describes n a t u r a l phenomena as i n t e r e s t i n g and i n f a c t " i n t e l l e c t u a l l y e x c i t i n g " because they e x h i b i t "the beauty o f the l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e i n nature".  His interest i n natural  phenomena i s therefore based p r i m a r i l y on the f a c t that so many n a t u r a l phenomena are explained through the a p p l i c a t i o n o f a few b a s i c laws o f physics.  The b a s i c teaching f u n c t i o n t o be served i n a s s i s t i n g t h i s group  o f students t o develop an i n t e r e s t i n natural, phenomena i s S 88  , t o pres-  ent s t r a t e g i e s which assemble f a c t s supporting t h i s a f f e c t i v e response toward n a t u r a l phenomena.  Sample f a c t s the student may b r i n g t o bear  on t h i s issue are: 1. The i n s t r u c t o r ' s obvious i n t e r e s t i n n a t u r a l phenomena. 2. Examples o f a given law (or laws) e x p l a i n i n g a d i v e r s e s e t o f n a t u r a l observations. 3. The consequences o r e f f e c t s o f n a t u r a l phenomena i n terms o f meeting personal o r s o c i e t a l needs. The s t r a t e g i e s the i n s t r u c t o r may s e l e c t t o e s t a b l i s h these f a c t s are: • 1. The use o f unobtrusive expressions o f i n t e r e s t v o i c e expression, f a c i a l expression, e t c . , when t a l k i n g about n a t u r a l phenomena. 2. V e r b a l expression o f h i s personal i n t e r e s t , i n the examples of n a t u r a l phenomena under discussion. 3. Selected i l l u s t r a t i o n s o f how a given law (e.g., Newton's second law) can e x p l a i n a d i v e r s e s e t . o f n a t u r a l phenomena (e.g., instances o f mechanical, e l e c t r i c a l , and magnetic f o r c e s ) . 4. I l l u s t r a t i o n s o f how n a t u r a l phenomena can be harnessed t o meet personal o r s o c i e t a l needs (e.g., r e f r a c t i o n o f l i g h t —  the phenomena  behind lenses used f o r eyeglasses, s c i e n t i f i c  89  —  instruments, photography, e t c . ) . 5. The i l l u s t r a t i o n o f p a r a d o x i c a l phenomena (e.g., water climbing up a c a p i l l a r y tube, i c e water b o i l i n g i n a depressurized atmosphere).  3.6.3 Sample Teaching S t r a t e g i e s f o r Group 9 Pig.  7b i d e n t i f i e s the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s R  and R 2  as r e q u i r i n g 6  s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis through the associated sets of s t r a t e g i e s S...  The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n w i l l present sample s t r a t e g i e s and t h e i r  r a t i o n a l e i n terms of the teaching functions they address. Value Statement R : ?  Sj 2'  Physics i s Potent  S t r a t e g i e s f o r I d e n t i f y i n g and C l a r i f y i n g the Value Statement The f o l l o w i n g strategy f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and c l a r i f y i n g the value.  of the o b j e c t i v e s of the course.  This strategy w i l l be seen t o be composed  of the same o r s i m i l a r moves i l l u s t r a t e d i n S e c t i o n 3 . 6 . 2 " f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and c l a r i f y i n g the value statement "Physics i s comprehensible". One o f the inportant goals of t h i s course i s t h a t you come to see the potency of physics — that i s , i t s power o r s t r e n g t h , and width i n terms of i t s a b i l i t y to e x p l a i n a wide range of n a t u r a l phenomena. This power becomes most evident when these explanations are seen t o be based upon only a few laws and p r i n c i p l e s . For some of you, your t u t o r i a l s w i l l emphasize t h i s power through a focus on the a p p l i c a t i o n of a s e l e c t few laws to a wide v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s . For a l l o f you u n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s i n t r o d u c t o r y course w i l l permit you t o experience the strength of physics i n i t s explanations of but a small sample of. n a t u r a l phenonena. This means o f course t h a t at the end pf t h i s year you p e r s o n a l l y w i l l not be able to e x p l a i n a l l n a t u r a l phenomena you encounter through the a p p l i c a t i o n of physics. Hopefully however, the 90  experiences you do g a i n i n t h i s course w i l l provide you w i t h adequate reason f o r viewing physics as I do — a s a s t r o n g and powerful science. This s t r a t e g y , when analyzed, can again be seen t o be composed o f moves which i d e n t i f y the value object and value term, e x p l i c a t e the value term and describe the value object.  In addition, t h i s strategy  contains moves which c i t e the c r i t e r i a against which the potency of physics i s t o be judged. S_  S t r a t e g i e s f o r Assembling Purported Facts The value judgment "Physics i s potent" must be based upon f a c t s  r e l e v a n t t o the explanatory power o f p h y s i c s .  Two f a c t s r e l e v a n t t o t h i s  judgment are: 1. A given law can be used t o e x p l a i n a wide range o f phenomena. 2. E f i o r t s t o e x p l a i n n a t u r a l phenomena p r i o r t o the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the laws and p r i n c i p l e s a v a i l a b l e today have been found t o be inaccurate or i n c o r r e c t . To demonstrate t h a t these f a c t s are t r u e , the s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis f o r Group 9 could i n c l u d e : 1. Examples of the a p p l i c a t i o n o f a given law or p r i n c i p l e t o a d i v e r s e and l a r g e set o f phenomena.  Here the emphasis would be on  p r o v i d i n g a l a r g e number of examples, r a t h e r than on d i a g n o s t i c a l l y a n a l y z i n g a few examples as was suggested f o r Group 1.  91  2 . Examples from the h i s t o r y o f science of attempts t o e x p l a i n n a t u r a l phenomena p r i o r t o the a c q u i s i t i o n o f today's p h y s i c a l laws and t h e o r i e s , and a comparison o f t h e accuracy and consequences o f these explanations w i t h today's explanations o f the same phenomena. For example, comparisons could be made between Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomy, o r the Newtonian view that l i g h t was due t o the displacement o f p a r t i c l e s o f a mechanical ether could be compared t o the modern e l e c t r o magnetic theory o f l i g h t . 3. Examples o f how very simple laws can be used t o e x p l a i n what appear t o be complex phenomena (e.g., laws o f r e f r a c t i o n and rainbows). Value Statement R^: Problem S o l v i n g i s Potent S_ '. Strategy f o r I d e n t i f y i n g and C l a r i f y i n g the Value Statement X  6  Below i s a sample s t r a t e g y that could be used t o i d e n t i f y and c l a r i f y the value  statement.  Physics attempts t o provide explanations o r pred i c t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o p h y s i c a l phenomena o r events. I t does t h i s through the a p p l i c a t i o n of s e l e c t e d laws and p r i n c i p l e s t o the events i n q u e s t i o n , and where necessary through the r e v i s i o n o r replacement of laws which provide explanations o r p r e d i c t i o n s which disagree w i t h observation. To understand how physics works i n p r o v i d i n g these explanations and p r e d i c t i o n s i t i s necessary t o p e r s o n a l l y experience the process o f a p p l y i n g physics, t o s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s . This i s the purpose o f the problem s o l v i n g e x e r c i s e s that you w i l l encounter during t h i s course. I t i s an o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s course  92  t h a t you come t o see problem s o l v i n g as a very potent o r powerful way o f l e a r r i i n g how physics works. While the correctness of problem s o l u t i o n s are o f obvious consequences, the focus o f your a t t e n t i o n i n these p r a c t i c e e x e r c i s e s should be on the problem s o l v i n g process. I t i s through . these e x e r c i s e s that you w i l l see examples o f how the models o f r e a l i t y o f f e r e d by physics provide explanations f o r the phenomena surrounding us. Working through these examples and a c t u a l l y s o l v i n g problems i s undoubtedly the most powerful way o f g a i n i n g an understanding o f how physics works. • S_  : S t r a t e g i e s f o r Assembling Purported Facts Two f a c t s t h a t appear r e l e v a n t t o the value statement i n question  are: 1. Problem s o l v i n g instances i n h i s t o r y have put c e r t a i n t h e o r i e s i n d i s f a v o u r o r l e d t o • t h e i r replacement, when c r u c i a l problems posed by these t h e o r i e s could not be solved. 2. Selected.problem s o l u t i o n s have come t o a c t as exemplars o f how physics works through the i l l u s t r a t i o n o f problem s o l v i n g methods generali z a b l e t o s i m i l a r problem s i t u a t i o n s . The s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis f o r Group 9 could therefore i n c l u d e (1) examples o f problem s o l v i n g instances which l e d t o the r e placement o f p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r i e s o r laws (e.g., The Michelson and Morley experiment) and (2) examples o f problem s o l u t i o n s which have come, t o act as exemplars o f how physics works (e.g., Atwood's Machine).  3.6.4 A Summary of the I n s t r u c t i o n a l Emphasis Suggested f o r Group 1 and Group 9 The s t r a t e g i e s s e l e c t e d as examples o f the s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis f o r Group 1 and Group 9 focused on the assembly o f f a c t s r e l e -  93  vant t o changing the "negative" a f f e c t i v e responses d i s p l a y e d by these students upon t h e i r entry i n t o t h i s Physics 110 course.  I n summary,  the sample s t r a t e g i e s s e l e c t e d f o r Group 1, which addressed the students' comprehensibility r a t i n g of P h y s i c s , Problem S o l v i n g , and N a t u r a l Phenomena, e n t a i l e d (1) a slower pace t o permit a d i a g n o s t i c approach t o only a "core" group o f laws, p r i n c i p l e s , and methods, (2) the a p p l i c a t i o n o f these laws, p r i n c i p l e s , and methods t o problem s o l v i n g s i t u a t i o n s which (a) s t r e s s the explanation o f f a m i l i a r yet poorly understood n a t u r a l phenomena, (b) provide an h i s t o r i c a l comparison o f how comprehens i b l e these phenomena now are w i t h how incomprehensible they were p r i o r t o the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n o f laws and p r i n c i p l e s we now possess, and (c) provide exemplars o f problem s o l v i n g methods g e n e r a l i z a b l e t o other problem s i t u a t i o n s .  The sample s t r a t e g i e s which attempt t o change  t h i s groups' l a c k o f i n t e r e s t i n n a t u r a l phenomena e n t a i l an overt (verbal and p h y s i c a l ) d i s p l a y o f the i n s t r u c t o r ' s i n t e r e s t , the i l l u s t r a t i o n o f p a r a d o x i c a l phenomena which appear contrary t o e x p e c t a t i o n , and the i l l u s t r a t i o n o f how n a t u r a l phenomena have been harnessed t o meet important personal o r s o c i e t a l needs. The sample s t r a t e g i e s f o r Group 9> which address the potency r a t i n g s of Physics and.Problem S o l v i n g , emphasized (1) the a p p l i c a t i o n o f given laws o r p r i n c i p l e s t o a wide range o f phenomena (with the emphasis on a large number o f examples r a t h e r than on the d i a g n o s t i c a n a l y s i s of. only a few examples as was suggested f o r Group 1 ) , (2) examples o f how very simple laws can be used t o e x p l a i n what appear t o be complex phenomena, (3) comparisons of the accuracy and consequences o f h i s t o r i c a l and modern physics' explanations f o r n a t u r a l phenomena, (4) problem  94  s o l v i n g instances which have l e d t o r e v o l u t i o n s I n s c i e n t i f i c  theories,  and (5) problem s o l u t i o n s which have come t o a c t as exemplars o f how physics works. The a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s addressed by the s t r a t e g i e s summarized above were d i f f e r e n t f o r the two groups.  The s t r a t e g i e s themselves  can be seen t o be d i f f e r e n t a l s o , y e t not t o t a l l y independent. l a p noted does not i d e n t i f y any inconsistency  The over-  i n the process o f s e l e c t -  i n g s t r a t e g i e s ; r a t h e r i t suggests that a given f a c t can be relevant t o , or i n Coombs and Meux's terms, have p o s i t i v e o r negative valence w i t h respect t o more than one value r a t i n g .  95  CHAPTER I V AN EVALUATION OF THE PROCEDURE  4.1 Overview o f the Chapter The Procedure i s a p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f psychometric and s t a t i s t i c a l techniques, theory and e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s . t o an educational problem.  The value o f the Procedure therefore r e s t s upon i t s educational  m e r i t s , s p e c i f i c a l l y i t s a b i l i t y t o s y s t e m a t i c a l l y and p r a c t i c a l l y provide a b a s i s f o r d e c i d i n g among i n s t r u c t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r g i v e n a f f e c t i v e goals. Encompassed w i t h i n the Procedure i s the a p p l i c a t i o n o f : 1. A t h e o r e t i c a l construct o f a f f e c t . 2. Techniques f o r i d e n t i f y i n g a course r a t i o n a l e and a f f e c t i v e responses o f concern t o the course. 3. The SD technique and associated s t a t i s t i c a l procedures f o r measuring and d e s c r i b i n g a f f e c t i v e responses. 4. Q-analysis procedures f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and d e s c r i b i n g types o f students i n terms o f s i m i l a r sets o f a f f e c t i v e responses. 5. l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s and e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s used to guide the s e l e c t i o n o f teaching s t r a t e g i e s aimed a t f u l f i l l i n g a f f e c t i v e goals. These f i v e components, presented i n Chapter I I , and i l l u s t r a t e d i n Chapter I I I , are the objects o f e v a l u a t i o n i n t h i s chapter.  96  4.2 C r i t e r i a f o r E v a l u a t i n g the Procedure 4.2.1 C r i t e r i a f o r E v a l u a t i n g the Psychometric and S t a t i s t i c a l Aspects of the Procedure Psychometrics r e f e r s t o the process o f mapping p s y c h o l o g i c a l constructs i n t o a numerical domain.  The psychometric and r e l a t e d s t a t -  i s t i c a l aspects of the Procedure t h e r e f o r e r e l a t e t o the SD technique, the steps i n i t s development and a p p l i c a t i o n , and the a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the data d e r i v e d from i t s a p p l i c a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g the Q-analysis procedures.  These aspects 6f the Procedure must meet c e r t a i n  c r i t e r i a as necessary p r e c o n d i t i o n s t o the educational value of the Procedure.  The two general c r i t e r i a t o be met are:  1. Does the a p p l i c a t i o n of the SD and Q-analysis techniques w i t h i n the Procedure f o l l o w w e l l established practice? 2. I s there evidence t h a t the SD and Q-analysis techniques w i t h i n the Procedure a c c u r a t e l y i d e n t i f y and describe students i n terms o f the antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses deemed t o be important? These c r i t e r i a r e l a t e t o the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y o f the data gained from the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the SD and Q-analysis techniques.  4.2.2  C r i t e r i a f o r E v a l u a t i n g the E d u c a t i o n a l Outcomes of the Procedure The e d u c a t i o n a l value o f the Procedure r e s t s upon I t s a b i l i t y t o  meet a ' s i g n i f i c a n t e d u c a t i o n a l need i n a p r a c t i c a l way.  A statement of  the t h e s i s pf t h i s study I n S e c t i o n 1.4 defines t h i s need t o be the  97  establishment o f a more systematic b a s i s f o r i d e n t i f y i n g teaching s t r a t e g i e s d i r e c t e d toward the f u l f i l l m e n t o f a f f e c t i v e goals.  The f o l l o w i n g two  general c r i t e r i a therefore express the b a s i s upon which the educational value o f the Procedure r e s t s : 1. Are the modal patterns generated by the Procedure u s e f u l as a b a s i s f o r guiding the s e l e c t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s ? • 2. I s the Procedure p r a c t i c a l as an approach to meeting the e d u c a t i o n a l need o f concern? An examination (1) the f e a s i b i l i t y ,  o f the p r a c t i c a l i t y o f the Procedure w i l l i d e n t i f y  and time and monetary costs of i t s component p a r t s  and.(2) those component p a r t s , i f any, which can be pursued  independently  by a classroom teacher, and those aspects r e q u i r i n g the involvement o f an i n d i v i d u a l w i t h psychometric  and s t a t i s t i c a l  expertise.  The  conclusions  drawn w i l l provide the b a s i s f o r recommendations regarding f u t u r e a p p l i c a t i o n s o f the Procedure.  4.3 An E v a l u a t i o n o f the Procedure The e v a l u a t i o n of the Procedure w i l l examine each of i t s component p a r t s as o u t l i n e d i n S e c t i o n 4.1 of t h i s chapter and as defined as  sub-  problems of t h i s study i n S e c t i o n 1.4, Chapter I . This examination w i l l be i n terms of the psychometric i s t i c a l , educational u s e f u l n e s s , and educational p r a c t i c a l i t y  and s t a t criteria  set out i n the previous s e c t i o n , and w i l l be based upon the a p p l i c a t i o n of the Procedure as reported i n Chapter I I I .  The t h e o r e t i c a l assessments  and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r the s e l e c t i o n of the component p a r t s of the Procedure  9 8  were given i n Chapter I I .  4.3.1 The S e l e c t i o n o f a T h e o r e t i c a l Construct o f A f f e c t STEP 1 Subproblem 1 S e l e c t , d e s c r i b e , and j u s t i f y the choice a t h e o r e t i c a l construct o f a f f e c t toward o r against an o b j e c t . The Procedure was developed and a p p l i e d w i t h i n the context o f Fishbein's theory o f a f f e c t .  A description of this particular theoretical  o r i e n t a t i o n i s given i n S e c t i o n 2.2.1." This o r i e n t a t i o n was s e l e c t e d t o provide a t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r the use o f the SD, and t o give d i r e c t i o n t o t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f data t o be d e r i v e d from t h i s use.  I n practice,. F i s h b e i n ' s theory d i d f u l f i l l these functions and i n  t h i s respect made a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n toward meeting the e d u c a t i o n a l need addressed by the Procedure. Fishbein's theory was a l s o s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s o f i t s p o t e n t i a l usefulness as a guide t o the s e l e c t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s .  How-  ever, i n the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Procedure, Fishbein's theory was found t o possess l i m i t e d usefulness i n t h i s regard.  The f a c t t h a t t h i s theory d i d  not d i s t i n g u i s h between f a c t s and b e l i e f s made i t d i f f i c u l t t o use i t as a guide t o the s e l e c t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s which provide a r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r making an a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g .  This and other i s s u e s r e -  l a t i n g t o Fishbein's theory w i l l be discussed more f u l l y I n other sections o f t h i s chapter.  4.3.2 The I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f A f f e c t i v e Responses o f Concern STEP 2 Subproblem 1 S e l e c t and describe systematic procedures f o r i d e n t i f y i n g  99  course context and i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s toward which the a f f e c t i v e responses acquired i n the past appear important f o r the purpose o f planning instructional strategies. P r a c t i c a l guidance f o r i d e n t i f y i n g the r e l e v a n t antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses was obtained from the e m p i r i c a l l y based suggestions o f Stake, and T a y l o r and Maguire, w i t h t h e o r e t i c a l g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f f e r e d by Fishbein's theory.  As o u t l i n e d i n p r i n c i p l e i n Section 2.3.1,  and i n  p r a c t i c e i n S e c t i o n 3-3, the problem o f i d e n t i f y i n g the a f f e c t i v e responses of concern i s a c t u a l l y a three stage problem. d e p i c t s these three stages.  F i g . 8 diagrammatically  The f i r s t stage, the c l a r i f i c a t i o n and r e -  finement o f the course r a t i o n a l e i s the heart o f the problem.  While the  procedures suggested by T a y l o r and Maguire f o r meeting t h i s problem were i n p r a c t i c e found t o be most e f f e c t i v e , the a p p l i c a t i o n o f these procedures i n t h i s study s u b s t a n t i a t e s Stake's recommendation t h a t the i n s t r u c t o r r e c e i v e considerable a s s i s t a n c e i n d e r i v i n g an accurate statement o f h i s course r a t i o n a l e . Identify Course Rationale  Identify Affective Goals w i t h i n the course r a t i o n a l e  I d e n t i f y antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses which may i n f l u e n c e the attainment o f the a f f e c t i v e goals  F i g . 8.—Procedure f o r I d e n t i f y i n g the A f f e c t i v e Responses o f Concern  The educational value o f a course r a t i o n a l e , because i t i s a comprehensive statement o f the i n s t r u c t o r ' s general purposes, meets needs or  beyond the requirements o f the Procedure.  W i t h i n Stake's framework  and f o r the purposes of the Procedure i t guides the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the important observed a f f e c t i v e antecedents. 100  I n i t s more general  capacity i t serves as a b a s i s f o r the -selection of s p e c i f i c l e s s o n o b j e c t i v e s (intended outcomes) and teaching s t r a t e g i e s (intended t r a n s actions).  The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the course r a t i o n a l e w i t h i n the Procedure  i s t h e r e f o r e seen t o make a valuable educational c o n t r i b u t i o n toward the f u l f i l l m e n t o f the e d u c a t i o n a l need i n question.  The s e l e c t i o n o f teaching  s t r a t e g i e s should always be based on a c l e a r and accurate statement o f objectives.  I t i s the f u n c t i o n o f the r a t i o n a l e t o provide t h i s statement.  The greatest p o t e n t i a l l i m i t a t i o n associated w i t h a course r a t i o n a l e i s the time r e q u i r e d t o i d e n t i f y an accurate statement of the i n s t r u c t o r ' s rationale —  c o n s e r v a t i v e l y f i v e days o f the i n s t r u c t o r ' s time and an equal  amount o f time from an educator who possesses the s k i l l s t o guide the i n s t r u c t o r i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f h i s r a t i o n a l e . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the a f f e c t i v e goals w i t h i n the  course  r a t i o n a l e and the subsequent i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses i n f l u e n c i n g the attainment of these goals were s t r a i g h t forward tasks  3  the l a t t e r being e f f e c t i v e l y guided by Fishbein's theory.  An  i n s t r u c t o r could f u l f i l l these two tasks on h i s own i f he were given the following directives: 1. I d e n t i f y a l l statements o f purpose w i t h i n the course r a t i o n a l e which r e l a t e t o students "feelings". 2. I d e n t i f y f e e l i n g s created i n the past which may i n f l u e n c e the attainment o f the " f e e l i n g s " s t a t e d i n . t h e a f f e c t i v e goals. Fishbein's theory o f a f f e c t formation or change i s the p r i n c i p l e u n d e r l y i n g the second statement.  I n t h i s context Fishbein's theory makes a d e f i n i t e  c o n t r i b u t i o n t o meeting the educational need i n question. 101  4.3.3 The S e l e c t i o n o f a Psychometric Technique STEP 2 Subproblem 2 S e l e c t , describe, and j u s t i f y the choice o f a psychometric technique f o r o b t a i n i n g observations on the a f f e c t i v e antecedent responses The SD technique, described i n S e c t i o n 2.3.2, was s e l e c t e d as the method o f measuring students' a f f e c t i v e responses.  S e c t i o n 3.4 discusses  the c o n s t r u c t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the SD f o r the Physics 110 course and the processing o f the SD data. Psychometric and S t a t i s t i c a l E v a l u a t i o n  The Procedure focused  on the a p p l i c a t i o n o f a set o f w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d psychometric and s t a t i s t i c a l techniques.  The e s t a b l i s h e d procedures f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g and admin  i s t e r i n g the SD measuring instrument  and summarizing the SD data are given  by Osgood and have since been r e p l i c a t e d i n many s t u d i e s .  The e s s e n t i a l  features o f e s t a b l i s h e d p r a c t i c e i n c l u d e (1) the c a r e f u l s e l e c t i o n o f objects and s c a l e s which are r e l e v a n t t o and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the area o f i n t e r e s t , (2) a set o f standard i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g the instrument, and (3) the use o f standard f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques f o r summarizing the responses on the SD instrument.  These features are  d e l i n e a t e d i n S e c t i o n 2.3.2, Chapter I I . As S e c t i o n 3.4 i n Chapter I I I documents, the use o f the SD conformed t o acceptable c r i t e r i a and p r a c t i c e I n t h i s respect S e c t i o n 3.4.1 describes the c a r e f u l manner i n which the SD objects and scales were s e l e c t e d , S e c t i o n 3.4.2 o u t l i n e d the method o f c o n t r o l l e d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the instrument, and Appendix B i l l u s t r a t e s the d e t a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n given t o students.  Sections 3.4.4 and 3.4.5  describe the methods o f employing standard f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques f o r summarizing the raw data.  102  S p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n must be drawn to the f a c t that i n the SD cons t r u c t e d f o r the Physics 110 course each object was followed by the same set o f s c a l e s .  This was a necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f  the SD, since the data underwent a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s outside the framework o f the Procedure, a n a l y s i s which demanded a common "semantic space" f o r each object.  For the purposes of the Procedure i t i s not necessary  t o f o l l o w each object by the same set o f s c a l e s .  I n f a c t , each object  need only be followed by s c a l e s which are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f and relevant t o the a f f e c t i v e responses o f concern.  This may mean t h a t some  objects can be followed by the same set o f s c a l e s , while others followed by fewer, o r more s c a l e s .  directly  are  Such a p r a c t i c e would reduce the task  imposed upon students, increase the face v a l i d i t y of the instrument i n terms o f i t s r e f l e c t i o n o f only the a f f e c t i v e responses o f concern, and p o s s i b l y enhance the ease by which the e m p i r i c a l s c a l e f a c t o r s are i n t e r preted. The p r a c t i c e o f f o l l o w i n g each object by the same set o f s c a l e s has the p o t e n t i a l of a s s o c i a t i n g some objects w i t h scales seen as i n appropriate s t i m u l i f o r evoking a f f e c t i v e responses o f concern.  That i s ,  s c a l e s s e l e c t e d t o measure a f f e c t i v e responses t o c e r t a i n objects are not n e c e s s a r i l y p e r t i n e n t t o a l l o b j e c t s .  The e f f e c t of t h i s p o t e n t i a l  problem was minimized i n the Physics 110 study by i n s t r u c t i n g students t o .respond n e u t r a l l y to those scales they considered t o be i r r e l e v a n t or unrelated to the object.  completely  This i n s t r u c t i o n i s commonly  88  used i n SD s t u d i e s . With respect t o the r e s u l t s o f the f a c t o r analyses o f the data, Table 3 i l l u s t r a t e s that approximately one h a l f o f the 103  SD  variance  i n the students' raw responses t o the scales remained unaccounted f o r by the three o f four f a c t o r s r e t a i n e d under each SD o b j e c t .  This f i n d i n g i s  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the r e s u l t s o f most s t u d i e s i n which three o r four o f Osgood's standard f a c t o r s are e x t r a c t e d .  As Osgood p o i n t s out, some o f  the remainder o f the variance may be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o sheer u n r e l i a b i l i t y , but p a r t o f i t does represent the presence o f a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s , s p e c i f i c 89 to p a r t i c u l a r s c a l e s and objects and p o t e n t i a l l y e x t r a c t a b l e .  Asking  students t o respond t o the same s e t o f s c a l e s under each object f o r example c o n t r i b u t e d t o the variance unaccounted f o r by the f a c t o r s r e tained.  This p r a c t i c e e l i c i t e d some a f f e c t i v e responses o f no consequence  to the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course.  Factor structures, accounting f o r .  l a r g e r proportions o f variance and composed o f more than three o f f o u r f a c t o r s were e x t r a c t e d and s t u d i e d f o r each object.  However the f i n a l .  f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s composed o f three o r four f a c t o r s were r e t a i n e d on the b a s i s o f the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s ' i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y and relevance t o the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course.  S e l e c t i n g f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s accounting  f o r only one h a l f o f the variance i n students' raw responses was t h e r e f o r e not a d e v i a t i o n from accepted p r a c t i c e and by t h i s standard does not represent a weakness i n the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the SD w i t h i n the Procedure. Given that.standard p r a c t i c e w i t h respect t o the use o f the SD was f o l l o w e d i n t h i s study, the f i n d i n g s reported by Osgood and many others regarding s c a l i n g assumptions (Section 3-4.3)» f a c t o r score r e l i a b i l i t y ( r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y o f the f a c t o r scores under r e t e s t conditions)., face and construct v a l i d i t y should apply.  With respect t o f a c t o r score  r e l i a b i l i t y , Osgood r e p o r t s that i n one r e p r e s e n t a t i v e study, changes i n f a c t o r scores exceeding 1.00 on the e v a l u a t i v e dimension, 1.50 on the 104  potency dimension, and 1.33 on the a c t i v i t y dimension were made by l e s s than- 5% o f 112 subjects r e t e s t e d w i t h i n 30 m i n u t e s .  90  With respect t o  face v a l i d i t y , Osgood reports studies i n which d i s t i n c t i o n s between objects o r c l u s t e r i n g s o f objects and scales made through use o f the SD were shown t o correspond t o d i s t i n c t i o n s o r c l u s t e r i n g s made without the use o f the SD. These studies u t i l i z e d p s y c h i a t r i c c l i n i c a l records 91  or other s c a l i n g procedures such as t r i a d s and successive i n t e r v a l s . In a d d i t i o n , construct v a l i d i t y studies were reported i n which the  corre-  l a t i o n between scores on the evaluative" dimension and scores derived from more t r a d i t i o n a l a t t i t u d e scales ( L i k e r t , Thurstone) were i n excess of . 9 0 .  92  While i t was not the focus o f the present study t o repeat any o f these formal i n v e s t i g a t i o n s regarding the v a l i d i t y o f SD data, there i s . evidence w i t h i n the study supporting the v a l i d i t y o f the data generated. The SD i t s e l f (Appendix B) has content o r face v a l i d i t y i n that the concepts and underlying scales s e l e c t e d r e f l e c t the a f f e c t i v e responses important t o the f u l f i l l m e n t o f the a f f e c t goals w i t h i n the course r a t i o n a l e . Section 3-4.6 discusses the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the scale f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d , , and the f a c t that these f a c t o r s can be represented as expected "commonsense" c l u s t e r i n g s . o f scales ( i . e . , face v a l i d i t y ) , c l u s t e r i n g s reproduced i n previous studies by Osgood and many other i n v e s t i g a t o r s employing s i m i l a r sets o f s c a l e s .  I n a d d i t i o n these scale f a c t o r s were h i g h l y r e -  producable i n a second group o f 200 students (Group B) from the same Physics 110 course.  These s c a l e f a c t o r s are displayed i n Appendix C.  The modal patterns a l s o e x h i b i t face v a l i d i t y , since on a given modal p a t t e r n common sense r e l a t i o n s h i p s can be seen among those a f f e c t i v e 105  responses which are e i t h e r h i g h l y p o s i t i v e or h i g h l y negative. A d d i t i o n a l evidence supporting the v a l i d i t y of the SD was  obtained  at the time of i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . As students handed i n t h e i r completed SD instruments they were i n f o r m a l l y and randomly asked questions l i k e "what d i d you t h i n k o f when you were responding t o the words under n a t u r a l phenomena?  Can you give me an example o f the 'power' o f p h y s i c s ? " and so  on. .Examples given f o r n a t u r a l phenomena were "the moon, l i g h t n i n g , magnetism, water, l i g h t , wind, etc.".. Examples of the power o r strengths of physics i n v a r i a b l y i n v o l v e d expressions l i k e "the a b i l i t y of physics t o e x p l a i n e l e c t r i c i t y , o r heat, . . . " power" o f p h y s i c s .  which r e l a t e d t o the "explanatory  I n g e n e r a l , the responses obtained were c o n s i s t e n t  w i t h the intended i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the SD objects and s c a l e s . This f i n d i n g i s of v i t a l importance, s i n c e the SD was constructed i n the context o f a course r a t i o n a l e and the responses t o i t i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h i n the same context.  However, at the time of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the SD the students  were not f a m i l i a r w i t h the course r a t i o n a l e , and hence might have i n t e r preted the objects and s c a l e s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t l y than intended.  If a  d i f f e r e n c e i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n had e x i s t e d , the modal patterns would not i n f a c t r e f l e c t the a f f e c t i v e responses of concern, i n s p i t e of the other evidence quoted as supporting v a l i d i t y .  That i s , the SD and subsequent  s t a t i s t i c a l procedures might have produced very r e l i a b l e data which are a v a l i d r e f l e c t i o n o f some a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s h e l d by s t u d e n t s , but perhaps not the a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s of concern t o the s e l e c t i o n of t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s addressing the a f f e c t i v e goals of t h i s course. I n summary, the observations above support the conclusions that (1) the a p p l i c a t i o n of the SD w i t h i n the Procedure met the c r i t e r i o n o f  106  e s t a b l i s h e d p r a c t i c e , and (2) the data obtained through t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n were v a l i d .  I n t h i s sense therefore,-. these observations support the use  of the SD as meeting the necessary p r e c o n d i t i o n s t o i t s educational value. I t would have been r e a s s u r i n g however i f even more data were a v a i l a b l e supporting the v a l i d i t y of the SD data. E d u c a t i o n a l E v a l u a t i o n I n t h i s study there were, no major p r a c t i c a l problems encountered i n e i t h e r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the SD or i t s admini s t r a t i o n i n the classroom context.  The instrument was p r i n t e d on custom  designed computer scannable forms t o f a c i l i t a t e the data processing. T h i s was a convenient but not a necessary step i n the p r e p a r a t i o n o f the i n s t r u ment.  The SD can be p r i n t e d i n i t s standard format u s i n g any a v a i l a b l e  d u p l i c a t i n g equipment.  Twenty-five minutes were a l l o t e d f o r the admin-  i s t r a t i o n Of the instrument.  The students r e a d i l y accepted the task at  hand, and n e i t h e r they nor the i n s t r u c t o r appeared t o view the t a s k as too time consuming or o b t r u s i v e . Given t h a t the a f f e c t i v e antecedent responses o f concern t o the f u l f i l l m e n t o f the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course have been i d e n t i f i e d , the c o n s t r u c t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the SD are judged t o be tasks which could be undertaken by an i n s t r u c t o r without a s s i s t a n c e from a t r a i n e d psycho-metrician.  As a- p r e r e q u i s i t e i t would be necessary f o r the i n s t r u c t o r  t o study pp. 76-85 of "The Measurement o f Meaning" i n which Osgood provides a n o n t e c h n i c a l p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g and a d m i n i s t e r i n g an SD. I f t h i s p r e s c r i p t i o n were adhered t o , the i n s t r u c t o r would have the assurances of past s t u d i e s t h a t h i s data were accurate r e f l e c t i o n s o f the a f f e c t i v e responses of concern t o him.  I n t h i s present study, the i n s t r u c -  t o r had the a s s i s t a n c e of the i n v e s t i g a t o r i n c o n s t r u c t i n g and a d m i n i s t e r i n g  107  the SD.  Assistance o f t h i s nature undoubtedly  increased the e f f i c i e n c y  o f these t a s k s . The a n a l y s i s of the SD data i s an area i n which most i n s t r u c t o r s w i l l r e q u i r e a s s i s t a n c e from an I n d i v i d u a l w i t h e x p e r t i s e i n the use o f computers and i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f a c t o r a n a l y s i s data.  This i n d i v i -  dual (or i n d i v i d u a l s ) must have knowledge o f how t o (1) prepare data f o r computer a c c e s s i b i l i t y , (2) i d e n t i f y and use standard f a c t o r a n a l y t i c programs, and ( 3 ) i n t e r p r e t the r e s u l t s o f f a c t o r a n a l y s i s and apply j u d i c i o u s combinations o f c r i t e r i a d e f i n i n g the number o f f a c t o r s t o rotate.  Since the SD objects and s c a l e s w i l l be unique t o the goals o f  a given course, an a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Procedure t o d i f f e r e n t courses w i l l always r e q u i r e a complete a n a l y s i s of the data.  N e i t h e r SD s c a l e f a c t o r  s t r u c t u r e s nor student types (modal p a t t e r n s ) are n e c e s s a r i l y g e n e r a l i z a b l e from one course t o the next. The p r e p a r a t i o n of the SD data f o r computer a c c e s s i b i l i t y can be c o s t l y i n terms of time and money, and i s seen as a p o t e n t i a l pract i c a l l i m i t a t i o n o f the Procedure i n educational s e t t i n g s without the resources t o meet these expenses.  This l i m i t a t i o n u n f o r t u n a t e l y e x i s t s  i n any e m p i r i c a l study r e q u i r i n g the computer a n a l y s i s of a l a r g e body o f data.  Once the raw SD data i s on computer cards, o r i n t e r n a l l y  stored i n the computer the s c a l e f a c t o r s can be i d e n t i f i e d e f f i c i e n t l y and inexpensively through the use of standard, r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s programs.  This process however i s demanding i n terms of the  time r e q u i r e d t o survey the meaningfulness  o f d i f f e r e n t numbers of f a c t o r s  f o r a given SD o b j e c t . In summary, the monetary and time cost of preparing the SD data  108  f o r computer a n a l y s i s , the need f o r a computer, and the need t o o b t a i n assistance may  from an i n d i v i d u a l w i t h computer and.psychometric expertise  present l i m i t a t i o n s on the educational p r a c t i c a l i t y of the use of  SD i n some a p p l i c a t i o n s of the Procedure.  the  While the SD appears t o provide  v a l i d i n d i c e s of the a f f e c t i v e responses needed as a b a s i s f o r the • s e l e c t i o n of teaching s t r a t e g i e s , and hence i n t h i s respect has high educational s i g n i f i c a n c e , the p r a c t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s delineated c l e a r l y l i m i t i t s a p p l i c a t i o n or m a r k e t a b i l i t y  above  i n c e r t a i n educational  settings.  4.3.4  The S e l e c t i o n of S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures  STEP 2 Subproblem 3 S e l e c t , d e s c r i b e , and j u s t i f y the choice o f s t a t i s t i c a l techniques and c r i t e r i a f o r c l a s s i f y i n g students i n terms of t h e i r antecedent responses. Psychometric and S t a t i s t i c a l E v a l u a t i o n was  The  technique of Q-analysis  s e l e c t e d as the means of i d e n t i f y i n g students w i t h s i m i l a r sets of  antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses.  The  Q-analysis was  performed through the  a p p l i c a t i o n o f Guertin's comprehensive p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s program.  Rules  or p r i n c i p l e s of p r a c t i c e regarding the use of the Q-analysis technique r e l a t e i n essence t o the proper uses of f a c t o r a n a l y t i c procedures. S e c t i o n .2.3.3 o u t l i n e s these p r i n c i p l e s and documents Guertin's program as adhering t o them.  I n u s i n g the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n  of Guertin's  program the user has c o n t r o l over the number of f a c t o r s t o r o t a t e at each stage I n the Q-analysis.  These numbers were i d e n t i f i e d through the  a p p l i c a t i o n of the "slope" c r i t e r i o n , an e m p i r i c a l l y based and r u l e of p r a c t i c e .  93 J  The  established  Q-analysis performed i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of the 109  Procedure can t h e r e f o r e be s a i d t o have conformed w i t h e s t a b l i s h e d p r a c t i c e . The v a l i d i t y o f the modal patterns i d e n t i f i e d by the Q-analysis i s dependent upon two i s s u e s , the f i r s t being the v a l i d i t y o f the SD f a c t o r scores on the p r o f i l e s as r e f l e c t i o n s o f the a f f e c t i v e responses o f concern. Support f o r the v a l i d i t y o f these scores was given i n S e c t i o n 4.3.3. The second i s s u e r e l a t e s t o the modal p a t t e r n s ' representativeness as t i g h t c l u s t e r s o f s i m i l a r student p r o f i l e s .  This i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y  critical  i s s u e s i n c e , as discussed i n S e c t i o n 3-4.9> the number and hence kinds o f modal patterns i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s instance were r e s t r i c t e d by the s m a l l number o f a f f e c t i v e scores on the p r o f i l e s . That the Q-analysis procedure does e f f e c t i v e l y i d e n t i f y s i m i l a r sets o f students can be seen i n the f a c t t h a t 191,of the 200 students l o a d higher than .50 on the varimax f a c t o r s d e f i n i n g the 16 modal p a t t e r n s , w i t h over h a l f o f these students l o a d i n g higher than .80 on these f a c t o r s .  The  s i m i l a r i t y o f the c l u s t e r s o f p r o f i l e represented by the modal patterns i s supported more d i r e c t l y through the observation t h a t the average "d" value . between p r o f i l e s w i t h i n each o f the shape f a m i l i e s represented by the 16 modal patterns was .25 standard score u n i t s , as compared t o an average "d" value o f 4.03 f o r a l l p r o f i l e s w i t h i n Group A.  This i m p l i e s that the  average d e v i a t i o n o f scores on the same a f f e c t i v e response between two p r o f i l e s w i t h i n a shape family was l e s s than .10 standard score u n i t s .  The  modal patterns appear t h e r e f o r e t o v a l i d l y represent the a f f e c t i v e responses of a group o f students w i t h very s i m i l a r sets o f a f f e c t i v e responses. An i s s u e which might have b e a r i n g on the use o f the Procedure i n some s e t t i n g s i s whether the Q-analysis process w i l l i d e n t i f y the same  110  sets of modal patterns from two random samples o f students drawn from the same population ( i . e . , c l a s s of students).  I n S e c t i o n 3.^«5> a  study addressing t h i s i s s u e was r e f e r r e d t o as a cross v a l i d a t i o n study. Another study r e l a t i n g l e s s d i r e c t l y t o the i s s u e o f cross v a l i d a t i o n i s the r e p l i c a t i o n o f s i m i l a r c l u s t e r s o f students from a given sample- through the use o f an a l t e r n a t e form of a n a l y s i s t o Q-analysis. these kinds are reported i n Appendix H.  Studies of both  C l u s t e r s of students I d e n t i f i e d  w i t h i n a given sample of 200 students through Q-analysis and  through  an a l t e r n a t e c l u s t e r i n g procedure were found t o possess a 50% overlap i n similarity.  This r e s u l t would be expected i n view o f the " t i g h t n e s s " o f  the c l u s t e r s i d e n t i f i e d through Q-analysis ( i . e . , average "d" value of .25 standard score u n i t s ) .  However, modal patterns were not found t o be  reproducible across random samples of 200 students drawn from the same population —  the Physics 110 c l a s s .  This f i n d i n g was not s u r p r i s i n g ,  and was i n f a c t a n t i c i p a t e d i n view of the large number o f d i f f e r e n t shapes that could e x i s t i n a set o f p r o f i l e s o f nine v a r i a b l e s , and a l s o i n view o f the absence of a p r i o r i grounds f o r b e l i e v i n g that p a r t i c u l a r "types" of i n d i v i d u a l s ( i . e . , s p e c i f i c shapes of p r o f i l e s ) e x i s t e d , would each be represented by s e v e r a l students, and hence would be I d e n t i f i e d as modal patterns i n d i f f e r e n t samples o f students.  The. r e s u l t s o f the  cross v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s , t h e i r causes, t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r p o t e n t i a l users of the Procedure, and t h e i r I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r future research are discussed i n d e t a i l I n Appendix H. Within the context of Q-analysis a c o n f l i c t could e x i s t between the educational requirements  of p r o f i l e i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y which would r e s t r i c t  the number of v a r i a b l e s on a p r o f i l e , and the s t a t i s t i c a l requirements  111  of  c o r r e l a t i o n a l and f a c t o r a n a l y s i s which would encourage a l a r g e number o f v a r i a b l e s on the p r o f i l e s .  I n Q-analysis, the observations over  which the i n d i c e s o f s i m i l a r i t y (e.g., c o r r e l a t i o n s or f u n c t i o n s o f distance) are c a l c u l a t e d are v a r i a b l e s , and not subjects as they are i n R-analysis.  Hence the r e l i a b i l i t y o f the i n d i c e s of s i m i l a r i t y i s a  f u n c t i o n of the number of v a r i a b l e s , which by e m p i r i c a l r u l e i s suggested to be 100 or more f o r u n r e l i a b l e data. i n the Q-analysis o f the Pnysics 110  Only nine v a r i a b l e s were used  course data.  Since these nine  v a r i a b l e s were f a c t o r scores o r weighted averages of many observations and hence much more r e l i a b l e than nine s i n g l e observations, the i n d i c e s of s i m i l a r i t y should themselves be r e l i a b l e .  I n a d d i t i o n , i n t h i s study  the.nine v a r i a b l e s were considered t o be a p o p u l a t i o n o f v a r i a b l e s r a t h e r than a sample o f nine v a r i a b l e s from a p o t e n t i a l domain.  This  judgment i s c r i t i c a l , and r e q u i r e s considerable d i s c u s s i o n and complete agreement among a l l persons i n v o l v e d i n a p p l y i n g the Procedure — i n s t r u c t o r , i n s t r u c t i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s , psychometricians, e t c .  the  To the  extent t h a t the v a r i a b l e s s e l e c t e d f a l l short o f being "the universe o f v a r i a b l e s " , the Procedure i s f a u l t y .  As described i n S e c t i o n 3.4.8,  the nine v a r i a b l e s were s e l e c t e d as the a f f e c t i v e responses o f relevance to the s e l e c t i o n o f a f f e c t i v e teaching s t r a t e g i e s .  T h i s being the case,  i t would not be a v a l i d c r i t i c i s m t h a t the i n d i c e s of c o r r e l a t i o n or distance are l a c k i n g i n s t a b i l i t y according t o a t - t e s t w i t h eight degrees of freedom.  The r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number of f a c t o r scores on a p r o f i l e  i s t h e r e f o r e not seen t o present a p r a c t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n on the a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f Q-analysis w i t h i n the Procedure. . In view of the support presented f o r the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y  112  o f the modal p a t t e r n s , i t would appear that these patterns have met these necessary preconditions f o r t h e i r educational value w i t h i n the Procedure. Educational E v a l u a t i o n  The educational value o f the Q-analysis  technique w i t h i n the Procedure r e l a t e s t o the e f f e c t s o f i t s use —  first  t o the i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y o f the modal patterns and t h e i r usefulness as a guide t o the s e l e c t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s , and second t o the costs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . The modal patterns i n P i g . 6a through F i g . 6h are at a glance d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t i n shape.  Each p a t t e r n and the group o f students  i t represents can be described i n terms o f the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s r e f l e c t e d i n i t s prominent p o s i t i v e and negative scores, as the sample d e s c r i p t i o n s o f Group 1 and Group 9 i l l u s t r a t e i n S e c t i o n 3-5-6.  The value o f the  modal patterns as a guide t o the s e l e c t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s . r e l a t e s t o t h e i r r o l e i n i d e n t i f y i n g those incoming a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s (or i n Coombs' terminology "value r a t i n g s " ) which are opposite i n character t o the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s expressed i n the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the cause.  These "negative" a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s on a given modal p a t t e r n  i d e n t i f y those a f f e c t i v e goals r e q u i r i n g s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis f o r the corresponding group o f students.  V i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n o f the modal  patterns i n F i g . 6a through F i g . 6h i l l u s t r a t e s the ease w i t h which the negative a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s are i d e n t i f i a b l e .  The d e s c r i p t i o n s o f Group 1  and Group 9 i n S e c t i o n 3-4.6 i l l u s t r a t e the manner i n which these r a t i n g s can i n t u r n be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h and described i n terms o f the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course r e q u i r i n g s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis.  In this  r e s p e c t , the sample Physics 110 data supports the judgment t h a t the  113  Q-analysis procedure makes a valuable e d u c a t i o n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o meeting the educational need i n question. The costs o f performing the Q-analysis, however, l i k e the costs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the a n a l y s i s o f the raw SD data, are q u i t e h i g h .  Guertin's  computer program ED777 i s a r e l a t i v e l y long and complex program.  The  monetary cost o f an a n a l y s i s of 200 students over nine v a r i a b l e s i s approximately  $20.00 per computer run where up t o ten runs may be. made  before the f i n a l set o f modal patterns i s i d e n t i f i e d . c o n s e r v a t i v e l y r e q u i r e two days.  'Phis process would  Because o f the complexity o f the program  the i n s t r u c t o r w i l l r e q u i r e guidance i n s e l e c t i n g program parameters which best s u i t h i s data.  The complexity o f Q-analysis i t s e l f w i l l  r e q u i r e most i n s t r u c t o r s t o seek guidance i n ' i n t e r p r e t i n g i t s r e s u l t s . Hence the use o f Q-analysis creates r a t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t demands on l i m i t e d budgets and on the time o f the i n s t r u c t o r and a consultant.  As i n the  case o f the SD s c a l e f a c t o r analyses, the use o f Q-analysis l i m i t s the market o f the Procedure t o educational s e t t i n g s where computers and i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h computer and s t a t i s t i c a l e x p e r t i s e are a v a i l a b l e , and from the p o i n t o f view o f f e a s i b i l i t y possesses s l i g h t or r a t h e r unc e r t a i n e d u c a t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n other s e t t i n g s .  4.3-5  The S e l e c t i o n o f Teaching S t r a t e g i e s  STEP 2 Subproblem 4 Select and describe t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n s and experimental f i n d i n g s p e r t i n e n t t o the s e l e c t i o n o f teaching s t r a t e g i e s which (1) appear appropriate f o r students c l a s s i f i e d i n the d i f f e r e n t categories i n terms o f t h e i r antecedent a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s , and (2) appear u s e f u l I n teaching d i r e c t e d toward a f f e c t i v e goals. Having the d e s c r i p t i o n s o f groups i n terms of the a f f e c t i v e goals  114  r e q u i r i n g s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis, i t was necessary t o then look t o the resources a v a i l a b l e f o r p r o v i d i n g guidance i n the s e l e c t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s t o secure the f u l f i l l m e n t o f these goals. The educational value o f these resources r e l a t e s t o t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s as guides t o the s e l e c t i o n o f these s t r a t e g i e s .  The u l t i m a t e c r i t e r i a  against which the e d u c a t i o n a l value o f these resources could be assessed would be the extent t o which the s t r a t e g i e s s e l e c t e d through t h e i r guidance were s u c c e s s f u l i n changing the negative a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s expressed i n the d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the groups.  This i s an e m p i r i c a l problem and would  e n t a i l a c o n t r o l l e d study o f students' a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s p r i o r t o and following instruction.  Such a study was not p o s s i b l e d u r i n g the Physics  110 course, since a t the time o f t h i s course the Q-analysis data and subsequent suggestions f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s were not a v a i l a b l e . A second c r i t e r i o n against which the e d u c a t i o n a l value o f these resources could be assessed would be the extent t o which  independent  judges would agree that sample s t r a t e g i e s s e l e c t e d f o r the d i f f e r e n t groups o f students through the guidance o f these resources were i n f a c t appropriate f o r these groups. study.  This second c r i t e r i o n was used i n t h i s  A p h y s i c i s t teaching a f i r s t year u n i v e r s i t y physics course and  a physics i n s t r u c t o r teaching the same course were independently asked simply t o agree o r disagree that the sample s t r a t e g i e s described i n S e c t i o n 3-6.2 and S e c t i o n 3.6.3 were appropriate i n terms o f the d e s c r i p t i o n s o f Group 1 and Group 9 given i n S e c t i o n 3.6.1. was  No disagreement  noted. Another c r i t e r i o n against which an assessment o f the resources  a v a i l a b l e f o r g u i d i n g the s e l e c t i o n o f s t r a t e g i e s can be made i s the  115  experience o f the author i n h i s attempts t o use these resources.  The  resource p r o v i d i n g most guidance i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the sample s t r a t e g i e s i n S e c t i o n 3.6.2  and S e c t i o n 3.6.3  was found t o be Coombs and  Meux's d e l i n e a t i o n o f the tasks t h a t must be f u l f i l l e d , or teaching f u n c t i o n s that.must be served i n the process o f a r r i v i n g at a j u s t i f i e d value judgment. From the attempts t o i l l u s t r a t e the use o f t h i s ' ;  resource i n the s e l e c t i o n o f s t r a t e g i e s i n Chapter I I I i t became apparent t h a t the focus of the teaching s t r a t e g i e s d i r e c t e d at the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the Physics 110 course needed t o be on the accumulation o f f a c t s r e l e v a n t t o the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g w i t h i n the g o a l .  For some a f f e c t i v e  r a t i n g s the greatest problem encountered i n t h i s process was t o i d e n t i f y more than one or two r e l e v a n t f a c t s .  This problem was f e l t t o be created  by the s p e c i f i c nature o f some o f the value judgments being made, and the' f a c t that these judgments were based on as few as one f a c t or r e l a t e d set o f f a c t s .  For example, the r a t i n g "physics i s powerful" i s based  p r i m a r i l y upon the f a c t that "physics can e x p l a i n a wide range o f n a t u r a l phenomena".  I d e n t i f y i n g f a c t s r e l e v a n t t o more general value r a t i n g s such  as "physics i s important" would not present the d i f f i c u l t y described above, since there are many independent f a c t s which are r e l e v a n t t o t h i s r a t i n g . Valuable sources of ideas f o r i d e n t i f y i n g the teaching s t r a t e g i e s t o serve the teaching f u n c t i o n s d e l i n e a t e d by Coombs and Meux were the moves i d e n t i f i e d through the e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s of Smith,. Meux e t a l .  The  work o f Coombs and Meux, and Smith, Meux, et a l . , were found t o go hand i n hand i n p r o v i d i n g u s e f u l guidance f o r meeting the problem o f s e l e c t i n g instructional strategies. I t should be noted that the teaching f u n c t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d by  116  Coombs and Meux are a l s o i m p l i c i t i n a vague manner i n Fishbein's theory. F i g . 9 summarizes the r e l a t i o n s h i p between these two resources.  It i s  comforting that these two resources, one from philosophers and one from a p s y c h o l o g i s t , present somewhat c o n s i s t e n t p o i n t s o f view. do d i f f e r however i n one important respect.  These resources  Of p a r t i c u l a r consequence  i s the d i s t i n c t i o n between the r o l e o f f a c t s , which Coombs and Meux emphasize, and the r o l e o f b e l i e f s , which F i s h b e i n emphasizes, i n the development o f a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s .  I n Fishbein's view, a statement o f  f a c t i s but one form o f a b e l i e f statement.  F i s h b e i n i d e n t i f i e s other  94 forms o f b e l i e f s which may i n f l u e n c e a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s .  However, from  a l o g i c a l point o f view Coombs and Meux note that f a c t s are the only b a s i s upon which an i n d i v i d u a l can develop a r a t i o n a l a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g — and i t i s only r a t i o n a l a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s which i n s t r u c t o r s u s u a l l y s t r i v e f o r i n teaching d i r e c t e d toward the f u l f i l l m e n t o f a f f e c t i v e goals. I t should be r e i t e r a t e d at t h i s p o i n t that education does not possess the t h e o r e t i c a l o r e m p i r i c a l resources needed t o p r e s c r i b e teaching s t r a t e g i e s . Nor i s there any guarantee that the f u l f i l l m e n t o f the s i x tasks o u t l i n e d by Coombs and Meux w i l l l e a d t o the development of the e v a l u a t i v e r a t i n g s o r value judgments that are d e s i r e d . given the present s t a t e o f the a r t , the use o f the resources  However,  discussed  above appeared t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t step toward meeting an educational need —  t h a t o f i d e n t i f y i n g teaching s t r a t e g i e s d i r e c t e d a t the f u l f i l l m e n t  o f a f f e c t i v e goals.  117  Teaching Functions  Coombs and Meux  Fishbein  I d e n t i f y and c l a r i f y the value rating  I d e n t i f y t h e a f f e c t i v e response ( A ) t o the object  Assemble purported f a c t s  I d e n t i f y b e l i e f s about the object  Assess t h e t r u t h o f purported facts  E s t a b l i s h the s t r e n g t h (b.) o f the b e l i e f s  C l a r i f y the relevance o f f a c t s -are the f a c t s about the value object? -do these f a c t s have p o s i t i v e or negative valence?  C l a r i f y the relevance o f b e l i e f s -are they about the object? -do the objects a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the value object by t h e b e l i e f have valence (a-j_) on the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g o f concern?  A r r i v e at a t e n t a t i v e value decision  A^  q  1  °  = . i a.b. i 1  1  F i g . 9.—Tne R e l a t i o n s h i p between Coombs and Meux'S Teaching Function and Fishbein's Theory o f the Development o f A f f e c t i v e Responses  4.4 E v a l u a t i o n Summary The educational need addressed by t h i s study was the need t o e s t a b l i s h a systematic b a s i s f o r i d e n t i f y i n g teaching s t r a t e g i e s d i r e c t e d toward t h e f u l f i l l m e n t o f a f f e c t i v e goals.  I t was t h e t h e s i s o f t h i s  study that the Procedure could f u l f i l l t h i s need.  I n terms o f t h i s  c r i t e r i o n o f need f u l f i l l m e n t , the r e s u l t s o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Procedure t o the Physics 110 course document the v a l i d i t y o f t h i s t h e s i s . The assessment o f the Procedure a l s o considered two other e s s e n t i a l c r i t e r i a — t h e psychometric Procedure, and i t s p r a c t i c a l i t y .  and s t a t i s t i c a l soundness of the  As p r e c o n d i t i o n s t o i t s e d u c a t i o n a l  v a l u e , the s t a t i s t i c a l and psychometric 118  elements o f the Procedure were  documented as adhering t o e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s o f p r a c t i c e , and support was evident f o r the v a l i d i t y of the data provided by these elements. However, there i s a concern t h a t elements of the Procedure are not pract i c a l i n some educational s e t t i n g s .  I n these s e t t i n g s t h i s concern i s  based upon time and monetary c o s t s . Looking s e q u e n t i a l l y at the steps w i t h i n the Procedure, three elements o f the Procedure appear t o demand s i g n i f i c a n t time o r monetary comniitments.  The f i r s t element i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a course  r a t i o n a l e , which f o r the Physics 110  course was found t o e n t a i l approx-  imately f i v e days o f i n t e r a c t i o n between the i n s t r u c t o r and the author. T h i s i s b e l i e v e d t o be a j u s t i f i a b l e and unavoidable investment of time i n the performance o f perhaps the most important and most d i f f i c u l t aspect o f the Procedure. The second and t h i r d elements of p a r t i c u l a r concern w i t h respect t o time and monetary c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are the use o f the SD t o i d e n t i f y a f f e c t i v e responses and the use o f Q-analysis t o c l a s s i f y students i n terms of s i m i l a r s e t s o f these responses.  While the f u n c t i o n s  performed by these elements o f the Procedure must be f u l f i l l e d , and w h i l e the SD and Q-analysis techniques were shown capable o f f u l f i l l i n g them, the costs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these complex elements o f the Procedure are high.  The F i x e d monetary costs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the use of the SD and Q-  a n a l y s i s techniques r e l a t e t o the use o f the computer.  Four hundred  d o l l a r s would be a conservative estimate o f the t o t a l costs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the i l l u s t r a t i o n of the Procedure u s i n g the 200 students.  Group A Physics  110  This amount, b e l i e v e d t o be a reasonable estimate o f the costs  of s i m i l a r a p p l i c a t i o n s of the Procedure, i n c l u d e s the costs of data  119  preparation (key punching or optical scanning), preparation of computer programs, factor analyses of the SD raw data, and the Q-analysis of the profiles.  In addition, a total of ten days of the author's and Instruc-  tor's time was required to perform the tasks listed.above (in this present study many more days were devoted to the preparation and modification of computer programs and to the analysis of other groups of students i n addition to Group A for validation purposes).  This number, which i n -  cludes the time taken to study the results of the analyses performed i s believed to be representative of that which would be required i n similar applications of the Procedure.  Eight of these ten days represen-  ted the author's role as a consultant to the instructor on the use of the computer, and on the use and interpretation of the results of factor analysis and Q-analysis.  The monetary costs of consultants i n roles  similar to the author's could be high.  While these costs could be offset  to some degree by the role and expertise of an instructor, i t i s believed that most instructors possess neither the computer s k i l l s , nor the stati s t i c a l and psychometric knowledge required to perform and interpret the results of the data analyses.  The use of the SD and Q-analysis tech-  niques therefore limits the application of the Procedure to educational settings i n which the necessary financial, consultant, and computer resources are available. In conclusion, the Procedure was found to provide a systematic basis for identifying teaching strategies directed toward the fulfillment of affective goals.  However, Its application i s limited to educational  settings with the resources available to meet the costs associated with the use of the SD and Q-analysis techniques.  120  CHAPTER -V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS '  .5-1 Summary 5.1.1 Restatement o f the Problem The purpose o f t h i s study was t o develop and evaluate a systematic procedure f o r i d e n t i f y i n g , d e s c r i b i n g , and r e p o r t i n g a f f e c t i v e responses toward objects acquired i n the past t o f a c i l i t a t e d e c i s i o n s on i n s t r u c t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s d i r e c t e d toward a f f e c t i v e goals.  This systematic  procedure, r e f e r r e d t o as "the Procedure", was developed w i t h i n the context o f science i n s t r u c t i o n .  The need f o r the Procedure was based  upon the importance o f a f f e c t i v e goals w i t h i n science i n s t r u c t i o n , and the f a c t that i n the past no systematic procedure has e x i s t e d f o r t a k i n g antecedent a f f e c t i v e conditions i n t o account i n the process o f s e l e c t i n g t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s d i r e c t e d toward the achievement o f a f f e c t i v e goals.  5.1.2 The Methodology o f the Procedure The general approach taken by the Procedure i n addressing the need s t a t e d above was t o i d e n t i f y and describe subgroups o f students w i t h i n a c l a s s who possess s i m i l a r sets o f antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses. The Q-analysis technique was employed t o i d e n t i f y these subgroups.  The  observations on the degree o f students' pro-ness o r con-ness o f these a f f e c t i v e responses were obtained through the use o f the SD technique. The a f f e c t i v e responses i d e n t i f i e d as most u s e f u l were the a f f e c t i v e  121  responses t o objects which r e f l e c t e d the students' pro-ness o r con-ness toward the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s inherent i n the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course.  The goals themselves were e l i c i t e d from a statement o f the  course r a t i o n a l e .  Given d e s c r i p t i o n s o f subgroups o f a c l a s s i n terms  of t h e i r incoming status w i t h respect t o the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s o f concern, i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s f o r these subgroups can then be s e l e c t e d t o focus on changing the students' inconving a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s which are most incongruent w i t h those d e s i r e d a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s r e f l e c t e d i n the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course.  5.1.3 The E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the Procedure The educational value o f the Procedure r e s t s upon the c o n t r i b u t i o n that each o f i t s component p a r t s and u n d e r l y i n g resources makes t o meeti n g the e d u c a t i o n a l need i n question,  The r e s u l t s o f the a p p l i c a t i o n  of the Procedure t o the Physics 110 course support the general e f f e c t iveness o f the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f each component i n meeting t h i s need. There i s concern however that the time and monetary demands associated w i t h some components may make the Procedure i m p r a c t i c a l i n educational s e t t i n g s without the resources t o meet these demands.  5.2 Recommendations Two sets o f recommendations s h a l l be presented. . The f i r s t set w i l l p e r t a i n t o the use o f the Procedure i n i t s present form.  The  second set w i l l r e l a t e t o use o f a l t e r n a t i v e s t o c e r t a i n components o f the  Procedure.  122  5.2.1 Recommendations p e r t a i n i n g t o the use of the Procedure i n i t s Present Form I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a Course R a t i o n a l e The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the course r a t i o n a l e f o r the Physics 110 course, a d i f f i c u l t and time con95 suming t a s k , was given e f f e c t i v e guidance by the suggestions of Stake, 96 and T a y l o r and Maguire.  The procedures suggested by these resources,  discussed and i l l u s t r a t e d i n Sections. 2.3.1 and 3.3, should be c l o s e l y adhered t o i n f u t u r e a p p l i c a t i o n s o f the Procedure. SD Technique  An advantage o f u s i n g the SD technique i n t h i s  study i s t h a t i t i s not c l e a r l y obvious t o the student what the i n s t r u ct?  ment i s measuring. and  wide  fashion.  - narrow  For example, many o f the s c a l e s l i k e strong  -  weak,  need t o be responded t o i n a metaphorical or i n d i r e c t  I t I s t h e r e f o r e d i f f i c u l t f o r the student t o "fake" h i s r e s -  ponses i f he were predisposed t o do so.  This apparent advantage of the  SD can a l s o be a s i g n i f i c a n t weakness i f t h i s l a c k o f p r e c i s i o n o f meaning o r d e f i n i t i o n of s c a l e s (and o b j e c t s a l s o ) permits or creates i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s which are not r e f l e c t i o n s o f the a f f e c t i v e responses o f concern. While the Physics 110 study d i d present evidence supporting the v a l i d i t y o f the SD data, I t i s recommended t h a t e f f o r t s at g a t h e r i n g a d d i t i o n a l support f o r the v a l i d i t y of the SD data be made i n f u t u r e studies of the Procedure.  For example, the SD data could be c r o s s -  v a l i d a t e d through a comparison w i t h data obtained from an equivalent form o f Thurstone or L i k e r t instrument designed t o o b t a i n observations 98 on one or more o f the same a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s .  A l e s s r e v e a l i n g but  supporting study would a l s o be the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the SD t o groups o f students who on an a p r i o r i b a s i 123 s would be expected t o possess d i f f e r e n t  a f f e c t i v e p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s t o the objects i n question. The f o l l o w i n g recommendations are a l s o made t o guide the development o f the SD Instrument and p o s s i b l y enhance the v a l i d i t y o f the SD data: 1. The instrument should be accompanied by a sheet which c l a r i f i e s the meaning o f the SD o b j e c t s , i f t h i s meaning may not u n i v e r s a l l y be shared by students. 2. Some SD scales could be p r e c i s e l y s t a t e d as a d j e c t i v a l phrases r a t h e r than as simple a d j e c t i v e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the a f f e c t i v e responses they represent are o f a s p e c i f i c r a t h e r than general  nature.  3. The same s e t o f s c a l e s should not n e c e s s a r i l y f o l l o w each object.  Only scales relevant t o  and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the a f f e c t i v e response toward each i n d i v i d u a l object should be l i s t e d beneath that object. 4. The objects and s c a l e s should be s e l e c t e d t o represent the population o f objects and a f f e c t i v e responses d e f i n i n g the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s d i s p l a y e d i n the a f f e c t i v e goals o f a course. While a d d i t i o n a l objects r e l a t e d t o the " a f f e c t i v e g o a l o b j e c t s " were included on the Physics 110 SD, the data obtained on these objects were not i n c l u d e d on the p r o f i l e s i n the subsequent 124  Q-analysis.  S e c t i o n 3.4.8  provides the  rationale for this decision. Q-Analysis  Guertin's computer program was found t o be an  e f f e c t i v e means of i d e n t i f y i n g and d e s c r i b i n g subgroups o f students w i t h 99 s i m i l a r p r o f i l e s w i t h i n the Physics 110 c l a s s .  In future applications  o f t h i s technique however, i t i s recommended t h a t the user be f u l l y cognizant o f the p o t e n t i a l danger of the number and nature of "types" i d e n t i f i e d being an a r t i f a c t of the number of v a r i a b l e s on the p r o f i l e s . I t should be manditory w i t h i n the Procedure t o check t h a t the students w i t h i n the "types" i d e n t i f i e d do i n f a c t possess h i g h l y s i m i l a r p r o f i l e s . S e l e c t i o n of S t r a t e g i e s  The s i x teaching f u n c t i o n s t o be  served i n a r r i v i n g at a j u s t i f i e d a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g , as described by Coombs and Meux, gave most d i r e c t i o n t o the s e l e c t i o n o f sample s t r a t e g i e s f o r the Physics 110 groups."'  00  As discussed i n S e c t i o n 4.3.5, Fishbein's  theory o f the development o f a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s , while' f o r the most p a r t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Coombs and Meux's a n a l y t i c a l approach, was not found t o provide t h i s d i r e c t i o n .  I t i s recommended t h e r e f o r e t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n  d i r e c t e d toward the f u l f i l l m e n t o f a f f e c t i v e goals be guided by the teaching functions d e l i n e a t e d by Coombs and Meux, and i n p a r t i c u l a r focus on the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of f a c t s r e l e v a n t t o the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g i n question. 5.2.1  A l t e r n a t i v e Approaches The i s s u e o f a l t e r n a t i v e s t o c e r t a i n components of the Procedure  i s r a i s e d p r i m a r i l y because o f the costs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these components. Hie components of concern are the SD instrument and a s s o c i a t e d analyses, and the Q-analysis technique.  I f these components could be replaced by  125  l e s s complex, l e s s demanding techniques, the major c o n s t r a i n t s on the use o f the Procedure would be removed. SD Technique  The l i m i t i n g feature o f the SD i s the extensive  data a n a l y s i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t s use.  The purpose of t h i s a n a l y s i s i s  to i d e n t i f y ( 1 ) the most meaningful c l u s t e r s o f s c a l e s under each object and ( 2 ) the students' scores on these c l u s t e r s o f s c a l e s . These scores define the s t u d e n t s ' a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s of the o b j e c t s . Perhaps a more d i r e c t way o f measuring the degree o f students' pro-ness or con-ness toward the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s o f i n t e r e s t would be to present these r a t i n g s i n the form o f statements on a L i k e r t s c a l e and then ask students t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r degree of agreement o r disagreement w i t h them.  I f there were only nine a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s o f i n t e r e s t , only  nine statements would be r e q u i r e d , and the nine scores obtained would define the p r o f i l e of the students' a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s . There are s e v e r a l problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s a l t e r n a t e approach. F i r s t , the judgments the student i s being asked t o make w i l l be obvious to the student.  I t would t h e r e f o r e be easy f o r the student t o "fake"  h i s responses, or give responses which express f e e l i n g s t h a t he b e l i e v e s the i n s t r u c t o r would l i k e t o see.  Second, because each score on the  p r o f i l e s i s based upon a s i n g l e o b s e r v a t i o n , the r e l i a b i l i t y and hence v a l i d i t y of these scores i s i n s e r i o u s question.  T h i r d , no t h e o r e t i c a l  b a s i s would e x i s t f o r t h i s use o f the L i k e r t technique.  The  technique i s based upon a unidimensional theory of a f f e c t .  Likert Hence users  of t h i s technique should be concerned w i t h the i n t e r n a l consistency o f responses t o statements t o permit a s i n g l e score t o be derived.  The  e x t r a c t i o n o f a s i n g l e score from each statement i s i n d i r e c t o p p o s i t i o n  126  to t h i s theory.  I n a d d i t i o n t h i s use o f the L i k e r t technique, since i t  i s not based upon r u l e s of e s t a b l i s h e d p r a c t i c e , would not have the support o f the voluminous s t u d i e s r e l a t i n g t o the r e l i a b i l i t y  and  v a l i d i t y o f s i m i l a r L i k e r t instruments. Another a l t e r n a t i v e one could consider would be t o construct a standard L i k e r t , o r perhaps Thurstone s c a l e composed o f groups o f  several  statements r e l e v a n t t o and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f each o f the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s of concern.  The responses on these groups o f statements could then be  summed or averaged, and the scores d e r i v e d could d e f i n e the p r o f i l e s o f a f f e c t i v e responses.  Because each of these scores i s d e r i v e d over a set  of observations, t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y should be enhanced.  However, the  unidimensional theory u n d e r l y i n g the Thurstone or L i k e r t technique would s t i l l not support t h i s use, nor would the studies supporting the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the e s t a b l i s h e d use o f these techniques. The degree t o which the two suggested approaches l i s t e d above can be considered c r i t i c a l competitors t o the SD techniques w i t h i n the Procedure w i l l depend upon the balance between (1) the resources ( f i n a n c i a l and time) a v a i l a b l e and (2) the i n s t r u c t o r ' s concern over u s i n g l e s s r e l i a b l e data obtained through processes which have no t h e o r e t i c a l backing o r e m p i r i c a l support.. I t i s recommended o f course that i f resources e x i s t , the SD technique be used, and that i t s use and studies o f i t s v a l i d i t y be guided by the recommendations set f o r t h i n S e c t i o n 5.2.1.  I t i s also  recommended t h a t f u t u r e a p p l i c a t i o n s o f the Procedure attempt t o i d e n t i f y yet  o t h e r , l e s s demanding, a l t e r n a t i v e s t o the SD technique. Q-Analysis  Once the students' a f f e c t i v e responses are i d e n t i f i e d  (by whatever method) a p r o f i l e o f scores e x i s t s as the b a s i s f o r the  127  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . o f students.  C l a s s i f y i n g i n d i v i d u a l s on the b a s i s of  p r o f i l e s o f scores i s a complex problem, s i n c e comparisons between two p r o f i l e s i n v o l v e comparisons of scores on each v a r i a b l e d e f i n i n g the profile.  I t i s f o r t h i s reason t h a t s t a t i s t i c a l approaches t o the c l a s s -  i f i c a t i o n o f p r o f i l e s , l i k e Q-analysis, are themselves r e l a t i v e l y complex. A n o n - s t a t i s t i c a l and.unsophisticated approach t p t h i s problem of c l a s s i f y i n g students would be f o r the i n s t r u c t o r t o attempt t o i d e n t i f y a set of patterns which were d i f f e r e n t , yet r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , and ask students t o i d e n t i f y the p a t t e r n which i s most l i k e t h e i r own p r o f i l e . The concerns r e l a t e d t o t h i s approach r e v o l v e around the degree t o which the p a t t e r n s s e l e c t e d d e p i c t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p r o f i l e s and t i g h t c l u s t e r s of s i m i l a r students.  Two problems u n d e r l i e t h i s concern:  f i r s t , how does  the i n s t r u c t o r decide upon the number and nature of the p a t t e r n s he d e f i n e s  a c t u a l l y e x i s t , and second, how p r o f i c i e n t would students be i n i d e n t i f y i n g a p a t t e r n of scores which i s most l i k e t h e i r  own.  Again, the extent t o which t h i s suggested approach can be cons i d e r e d a c r i t i c a l competitor t o the Q-analysis technique w i l l depend upon the balance between the resources a v a i l a b l e and the i n s t r u c t o r ' s concern over the two i s s u e s r a i s e d above.  I t i s again recommended t h a t  i f resources are a v a i l a b l e the i n s t r u c t o r l e t the computer, through the a p p l i c a t i o n of Q-analysis, perform the complex t a s k of i d e n t i f y i n g types of students w i t h i n a c l a s s and then c l a s s i f y i n g students w i t h i n these types.  Future users of the Procedure are s t i l l encouraged however t o  attempt t o i d e n t i f y l e s s demanding a l t e r n a t i v e s t o Q-analysis.  128  5.3 Conclusions The f i e l d of computer science has s u c c e s s f u l l y used the resources i n the r e l a t e d f i e l d s o f physics and engineering t o create computer systems capable o f meeting the challenge o f man's most complex problems. In the f i e l d of education however, the reverse s i t u a t i o n i s t r u e . unsolved problems e x i s t .  Basic  I n the p u r s u i t o f s o l u t i o n s t o these problems .  Broudy p o i n t s out, t h a t educators, l i k e computer s c i e n t i s t s , must u t i l i z e the resources of r e l a t e d f i e l d s .  F o l l o w i n g t h i s course, t h i s study  a p p l i e d p h i l o s o p h i c a l , p h y c h o l o g l c a l , and a s s o c i a t e d psychometric s t a t i s t i c a l resources t o a b a s i c classroom problem — teaching s t r a t e g i e s d i r e c t e d at a f f e c t i v e goals.  and  the s e l e c t i o n o f  A systematic Procedure  employing the knowledge and methods of these resource areas was  developed  f o r the purpose of a c c u r a t e l y i d e n t i f y i n g antecedent and intended a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s as guides t o the s e l e c t i o n of these s t r a t e g i e s . On the b a s i s of the r e s u l t s o f the a p p l i c a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of t h i s Procedure i n t h i s study, i t can be concluded t h a t the Procedure i s capable of f u l f i l l i n g t h i s purpose. complexity.  I t s g r e a t e s t weakness i s i t s  I t s g r e a t e s t s t r e n g t h i s the experience i t provides t o  the i n s t r u c t o r d u r i n g h i s involvement i n the systematic process of i d e n t i f y i n g "and j u s t i f y i n g h i s teaching goals and teaching s t r a t e g i e s .  129  Footnote References  \  "hrlarry S. Broudy, " C r i t e r i a f o r the P r o f e s s i o n a l Preparation o f Teachers," J o u r n a l o f Teacher Education, XVI (December, 1965), pp.408-15. 2 Thomas S. Kuhn, "Second Thoughts on Paradigms," Princeton U n i v e r s i t y , 1968 (Mmeographed), pp..9-24. % h e term s c i e n t i f i c paradigm i s used by Kuhn i n two d i f f e r e n t senses. On the one hand, i t stands f o r the e n t i r e c o n s t e l l a t i o n o f b e l i e f s , values, techniques, and so on shared by the members o f the s c i e n t i f i c community. On the other, i t denotes one s o r t o f element i n that c o n s t e l l a t i o n , the concrete p u z z l e - s o l u t i o n s which are employed as models o r exemplars o f past achievements. As an example o f the second sense o f the term, consider the student who i s a c q u i r i n g the paradigm f=ma (Newton's second lav/). T h i s symbolic g e n e r a l i z a t i o n takes on d i f f e r e n t forms from one problem s i t u a t i o n t o the next, and through studying such s i t u a t i o n s , the student learns t o design the appropriate v e r s i o n o f f=Tna through which t o i n t e r r e l a t e the f o r c e s , masses, and a c c e l e r a t i o n s p a r t i c u l a r t o each s i t u a t i o n . Kuhn argues he does t h i s by d i s c o v e r i n g a. given s i t u a t i o n as l i k e a problem already encountered. The law f=ma has functioned as a t o o l , inf'orming the student what s i m i l a r i t i e s t o look f o r , s i g n a l i n g the G e s t a l t i n which the s i t u a t i o n i s t o be seen. A f t e r he has completed a c e r t a i n number o f exemplary problems, the student views the s i t u a t i o n s that confront him as a s c i e n t i s t i n the same G e s t a l t . For him they are no longer the same s i t u a t i o n s he had encountered when h i s t r a i n i n g began. He has meanwhile a s s i m i l a t e d a time-tested and group-licensed way o f seeing This example i s taken from: Thomas S. Kuhn, the Structure o f S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions (Chicago, I l l i n o i s : The U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press,  1970), pp.188-9. 4  Don E. Dulany, "Awareness, Rules, and P r o p o s l t i o n a l C o n t r o l : A Confrontation w i t h S-R Behavior Theory," V e r b a l Behavior and General Behavior Theory, ed. T. R. Dixon and D. L. Horton (Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1968), pp.340-87. F i s h b e i n has •applied Dulany's theory o f p r o p o s l t i o n a l c o n t r o l t o s o c i a l behavior and the p r e d i c t i o n o f behavior. Fishbein's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Dulany's theory i s given i n : M a r t i n F i s h b e i n , " A t t i t u d e and the P r e d i c t i o n o f Behavior," A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurement, ed. M a r t i n F i s h b e i n (New York: John Wiley and Sons, I n c . , 1967), pp.487-91.  130  Footnote References. . . Continued 5 Martin F i s h b e i n , "A Behavior Theory Approach t o the Relations between B e l i e f s about an Object and the A t t i t u d e toward the Object," A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurement, ed. Martin F i s h b e i n (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), pp.389-400. ^Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Function o f Dogma i n S c i e n t i f i c Research," S c i e n t i f i c Change, ed. A. C. Crombie (New York: Basic Books Inc., 196l), PP.347-69. 7 Robert E. Stake, "The Countenance o f Education E v a l u a t i o n , " Teachers College Record, LXVTII (1967), pp.523-40. 8 ^Fishbein, A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurements, pp.389-400. Q  Michael S c r i v e n , "The Methodology o f E v a l u a t i o n , " American Educat i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n Monograph Series on Curriculum E v a l u a t i o n , I (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967), pp.39-81^ 1 0  S t a k e , Teachers College Record, pp.523-40.  11 Peter A.. Taylor and Thomas 0. Maguire, "A T h e o r e t i c a l E v a l u a t i o n Model," Manitoba Journal o f Educational Research, I (June, 1966), pp.12-17. 12 Charles E. Osgood, George J . S u c i , and Percy H. Tannenbaum, The 1957), PP.1-356. '. "^^william Stephenson, " C o r r e l a t i n g Persons Instead o f Tests," Character and P e r s o n a l i t y , V I (1935), pp.17-24. 14 Wilson H. Guertin-and John P. B a i l e y , J r . , I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Modern Factor A n a l y s i s , (Michigan: Edward Brothers, Inc., 1970), pp.259-434. 15 F i s h b e i n , A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurement, pp.389-400. B. 0. Smith, M. Meux, e t a l , "A Study o f the S t r a t e g i e s o f Teachi n g , " College o f Education, U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 1967 (mimeographed). 17 F i s h b e i n , A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurement, pp.389-400. 18 L. W. Doob, "The Behaviour o f A t t i t u d e s , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, LIV, (1947), pp.135-56. 19 Osgood, S u c i , and Tannenbaum, The Measurement o f Meaning, pp.1-30. 20  R. J . Rhine, "A Concept-Formation Approach t o A t t i t u d e A c q u i s i t i o n , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, LXV, (1958), pp.362-70. 23  22 F i s h b e i n , A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurement, pp.389-400. Ibid. 131  Footnote References.  . . Continued  ^Nancy. Wiggins and M a r t i n F i s h b e i n , "Dimensions o f Semantic Space: A Problem o f I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s , " Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Technique, ed. James G. Snider and Charles E. Osgood (Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1969), pp.183-93. 24 Stake, Teachers College Record, pp.523-40. 25 Harry S. Broudy, "Levels o f Conceptualization i n the S p e c i f i c a t i o n o f Educational Objectives," U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , (mimeographed), date uioknown. 26 Stake, Teachers College Record, pp.8-9. 2  27  Robert E. Stake, "The New Countenance on Educational E v a l u a t i o n , " Center f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l Research and Curriculum E v a l u a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1965 (niimeographed), p.7. ^ I b i d . , p.8. 29  • • T a y l o r and Maguire, Manitoba J o u r n a l o f Educational Research, pp.12-17. 30 Scriven,' American Educational Research A s s o c i a t i o n Monograph Series on Curriculum E v a l u a t i o n , I , p.56. ^ S t a k e , Teachers College Record, pp.8-9. 32 Osgood, The Measurement o f Meaning, pp.19-20; 33 I b i d . , pp.53-61. These pages c o n t a i n a wide sample o f the s c a l e s d e f i n i n g the f a c t o r s i s o l a t e d by Osgood. 34 Many i n v e s t i g a t o r s have found that s c a l e s c l u s t e r i n d i f f e r e n t ways f o r d i f f e r e n t concepts. Two studies i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h i s conceptscale i n t e r a c t i o n are: Harold G u l l l k s e n , "How t o Make Meaning More Meaningful," Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Technique, ed. James G. Snider and Charles E. Osgood (Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1969), pp.89-95, and Donald K. D a r n e l l , "Concept Scale I n t e r a c t i o n i n the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l , " J o u r n a l o f Comniunication, XVT, (1966), pp. 104-15. 35 Spearman, The Nature o f I n t e l l i g e n c e and the P r i n c i p l e s o f Cognition, (New York: Macmillan Co., 1925). J J  96  G. University 37 C. Psychology,  H. Thomson, The F a c t o r i a l A n a l y s i s o f Human A b i l i t y , (London o f London Press, 1939). Burt, " C o r r e l a t i o n between Persons," B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f XXVIII (1937), pp.59-96.  132  Footnote References. . . Continued • Stephenson, Character and P e r s o n a l i t y , V I , pp.17-24. The most d e t a i l e d e x p l i c a t i o n o f Stephenson's work i s given i n : W i l l i a m Stephenson, The Study o f Behaviour: Q-Technique and I t s Methodology, (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press, 1953)• 39 Stephen R. Brown, "Bibliography on Q-Technique and i t s Methodology," Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , XXVT (1968), pp.587-613. 40 Guertin and B a i l e y , I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Modern Factor A n a l y s i s , pp.264-8. Ibid. 42 R. B. C a t t e l l , " r and Other C o e f f i c i e n t s o f Pattern S i m i l a r i t y , " Psychometrika, XIV, (19499* pp.279-98. Cronbach and G. C. Gleser, "Assessing S i m i l a r i t y Between P r o f i l e s , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , L (1953), pp..456-73. • 44 Osgood, S u c i , and Tannenbaum, The Measurement o f Meaning, pp.39-42. 45 J . Nunnally, "The A n a l y s i s o f P r o f i l e Data," P s y c h o l o g i c a l •DUX—. - —-i-i i ,  _UL^I.,  ^^.yOc y , ^j^s •  •  46 C a t t e l l , Psychometrika, XIV, pp.279-98. 47 Nunnally, P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , LIX, pp.311-19. 48 Guertin and B a i l e y , I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Modern Factor A n a l y s i s , p.275. 4Q R. B. C a t t e l l , Factor A n a l y s i s , (New York: Harper, 1952), p.101. Ibid. y  5 0  51 Guertin and B a i l e y , I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Modern Factor A n a l y s i s , p.267. 52 Raymond B. C a t t e l l , "The Taxonometric Recognition o f Types and F u n c t i o n a l Emergents," Handbook o f M u l t i v a r i a t e Experimental Psychology, ed. Raymond B. C a t t e l l (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966), pp.288-97. ^ j . E. O v e r a l l , "Note on M u l t i v a r i a t e Methods f o r P r o f i l e A n a l y s i s , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , L X I , (1961), pp.195-8. 54 J . C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967), pp.335-6. 55 Guertin and B a i l e y , I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Modem Factor A n a l y s i s , p.267. 133  Footnote References. . . Continued ^ N u n n a l l y , Psychometric Theory, p.386.  57 Guertin and Bailey, Introduction t o Modern Factor Analysis,  pp.260-2. 5 8  I b l d . , pp.284-90.  59 • F i s h b e i n , Attitude Measurement and Theory, pp.389-400. ^ R o b e r t F. Mager, Developing Attitude Toward learning, (Palo A l t o : Fearon Publishers, 1968). Smith, Meux, et a l , "A Study o f the Strategies o f Teaching," (rnimeographed). 6 2  I b i d . , p.49.  6 3  I b i d . , p.290. Ibid.,  6 5  I b i d . , p.6.  6 6  I b i d . , p.23.  6 7  I b i d . , p.53.  6 8  I b i d . , pp.149-61.  6 9  I b i d . , pp.144-7.  7 0  Ibid.  7 1  I b l d . , p.147.  72 J e r r o l d R. Coombs and Milton Meux, "Teaching Strategies f o r Value Analysis," Values Education, ed. Lawrence E. Metcalf, (Washington, D.C.: National Council f o r the S o c i a l Studies, 1971), p.29. 73  S t a k e , Teachers College Record, pp.523-40.  74 Taylor and Maguire, Manitoba Journal o f Educational Research, I , pp.12-17. ^Smith, Meux, et a l , "A Study o f the Strategies of Teaching" (mimeographed), pp.144-7. 7  134  Footnote References. . . Continued 76  A pre and post SD was administered as p a r t of the e v a l u a t i o n study of the Physics 110 course. One aspect o f t h i s study was t o determine whether the course was e f f e c t i v e i n making s e l e c t e d SD objects (parti c u l a r l y PHYSICS and IMF,T,T,ECTUAL EXCITEMENT) move c l o s e r together (approach congruity) i n a common semantic space. For t h i s reason the object IJNTELXECTUAL EXCITEMENT was i n c l u d e d on the SD, and each object was f o l l o w e d by the same set of s c a l e s .  77  See preceeding footnote.  7ft  Osgood, S u c i , and Tannenbaum, The Measurement o f Meaning, pp.146-53.  79 The term " f a c t o r " I s o f t e n used f o r convenience, whether the context i s f a c t o r a n a l y s i s c r component a n a l y s i s .  80  Examples of s t u d i e s u s i n g p r i n c i p a l components and varimax a n a l y s i s are: V i r g i n i a A. C l a r k and Jean S. K e r r i c k , "A Method f o r Obtaining Summary Scores from Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Data," The J o u r n a l o f Psychology, LXVI (1967), pp.77-85, and Fred W. Ohnmacht, John H. Rosenbach and Angel M. Pacheco, "Science Concepts i n Connotative Space," a paper read at the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n Annual Meeting, New York C i t y , February 5th, 1971. O-l  Ledyard R. Tucker, "Some Mathematical Notes on Three-Mode F a c t o r A n a l y s i s , " Psychometrika. XXXI (September, 1966). pp.279-311.  82  Murray S. Miron and Charles E. Osgood, "Language Behavior: The M u l t i v a r i a t e S t r u c t u r e of Q u a l i f i c a t i o n , " Handbook of M u l t i v a r i a t e Experimental Psychology, ed. Raymond B. C a t t e l l , (Chicago: Rand McNally  and Co., 1966), 790-987  K a i s e r , "A Second-Generation L i t t l e J i f f y , " Psychometrika, XXXV (1970), pp.401-16. 84  Raymond B. C a t t e l l , "The Meaning and S t r a t e g i c Use o f F a c t o r A n a l y s i s , " Handbook of M u l t i v a r i a t e Experimental Psychology, ed. Raymond B. C a t t e l l (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966), pp.205-6.  85  Osgood, S u c i , and Tannenbaum, The Measurement o f Meaning, pp.31-75.  86 The course r a t i o n a l e i n c l u d e s a statement o f t h e . c o g n i t i v e as w e l l as the a f f e c t i v e general purposes o f the course. While the c o g n i t i v e goals of the course may i n i t i a l l y appear t o be o f no d i r e c t concern w i t h i n the Procedure ( i . e . t o the problem of i d e n t i f y i n g teaching s t r a t e g i e s d i r e c t e d at a f f e c t i v e goals) these c o g n i t i v e goals do serve the Procedure i n three c a p a c i t i e s . F i r s t , they enable a comparison t o be made between the r e l a t i v e importance of the c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course. For example, i n the Physics 110 course r a t i o n a l e an a f f e c t i v e g o a l was i d e n t i f i e d as the primary goal of the course. Second, the process of  135  Footnote References. . , Continued i d e n t i f y i n g both a f f e c t i v e and c o g n i t i v e goals at the same time serves t o c l a r i f y both s e t s o f statements. For example, the P h y s i c s 1 1 0 course wanted students t o f e e l ( i . e . a f f e c t i v e goals) that physics was a "powerf u l way to understand a wide range o f n a t u r a l phenomena," but i t was not an e x p e c t a t i o n o f the course that students be able t o e x p l a i n ( c o g n i t i v e goal) a l l o f these same phenomena through the use o f p h y s i c s . And t h i r d , as F i s h b e i n ' s theory p o i n t e d out, the a c q u i s i t i o n o f a f f e c t i v e responses occurs i n conjunction w i t h c o g n i t i v e l e a r n i n g . Therefore a d e f i n i t i o n o f the c o g n i t i v e expectations o f the course defines the c o g n i t i v e context i n which the a f f e c t i v e goals are t o be addressed. For example, a course i n t e r e s t e d i n the theory o f l i g h t and not i n the theory o f e l e c t r i c i t y would n e c e s s a r i l y i l l u s t r a t e the "explanatory power of p h y s i c s " through examples drawn from phenomena r e l a t i n g t o r e f l e c t i o n and r e f r a c t i o n , and not from e l e c t r i c a l power o r magnetism.' S e e footnote 7 6 .  87  88  9  Osgood, S u c i , and Tannenbaum, The Measurement o f Meaning, p . 8 3 .  Jbid.,  8 9  °Ibid.,  pp.38-9. pp.138-9.  9 1  I b l d . , pp.141-6.  9 2  Ibid.,  p.194.  93  " U a t t e l l , "The Meaning and S t r a t e g i c Use o f F a c t o r A n a l y s i s , " Handbook o f M u l t i v a r i a t e -Experimental Psychology. 94 M a r t i n F i s h b e i n , "A C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f B e l i e f s , and t h e i r Role i n A t t i t u d e Measurement," A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurement, ed. M a r t i n F i s h b e i n (New York: John Wiley and Sons I n c . , 1 9 6 7 ) , p p . 2 5 8 - 6 0 . 9 5  S t a k e , Teachers College Record, p p . 5 2 3 - 4 0 .  96 T a y l o r and Maguire, Manitoba J o u r n a l o f Educational Research,  pp.12-17.  97 Osgood, S u c i , and Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning, p p . 2 0 - 5 , and Roger W. Brown, ."Is a Boulder Sweet or Sour?", Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Technique, ed. James G. Snider and Charles E. Osgood (Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1 9 6 9 ) , p p . 8 5 - 8 . 98  A comprehensive d i s c u s s i o n o f the L i k e r t and Thurstone t e c h niques i s found i n A. L. Edwards, Techniques o f A t t i t u d e Scale C o n s t r u c t i o n , (New York: Appleton-Century C r o f t s I n c . , 1 9 5 7 ) 5 p p . 1 - 2 5 6 .  136  Footnote References. . . Continued 99  G u e r t i n and B a i l e y , I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Modem F a c t o r A n a l y s i s , pp.419-34. "^Coombs and Meux, Values Education, pp.29-74. 101 Broudy, J o u r n a l o f Teacher Education, p.410.  137  BIBLIOGRAPHY Broudy, Harry S. " C r i t e r i a f o r the P r o f e s s i o n a l Preparation o f Teachers," J o u r n a l o f Teacher Education, XVT (December, 1965), 408-15.' . "Levels o f Conceptualization i n the S p e c i f i c a t i o n o f Educational Objectives," U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , Date Unknown, (mimeographed). Brown, Roger W. " I s a Boulder Sweet o r Sour?", Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Technique. E d i t e d by James G. Snider and Charles E. Osgood. Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1969. Brown, Stephen R. "Bibliography on Q-Teehnique and I t s Methodology," Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , XXVI (1968), 587-613. B u r t , C. " C o r r e l a t i o n s Between Persons," B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f Psychology, XXVTII (1937), 59-96. C a t t e l l , Raymond B.  F a c t o r A n a l y s i s , New York: Harper, 1952.  . "The Meaning and S t r a t e g i c use o f Factor A n a l y s i s , " Handbook of M u l t i v a r i a t e Experimental Psychology. ., M. A. C o u l t e r , and B. T s u j i o k a . "The Taxonometric Recognition of Types and F u n c t i o n a l Emergents," Handbook o f M u l t i v a r i a t e Experimental Psychology. E d i t e d by Raymond B. C a t t e l l . Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966. C l a r k , V i r g i n i a A., and Jean S. K e r r i c k . "A Method f o r Obtaining Summary Scores from Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Data," The J o u r n a l o f Psychology, LXVT (1967), 77-85Coombs, J e r r o l d R., and M i l t o n Meux. "Teaching S t r a t e g i e s f o r Value A n a l y s i s , " Values Education. E d i t e d by Lawrence E. Metcalf. Washington, D.C.: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l f o r the S o c i a l S t u d i e s , 1971Cronbach, L. J . , and G, C. Gleser. "Assessing S i m i l a r i t y Between P r o f i l e s , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , L (1953), 456-73D a r n e l l , Donald K. "Concept Scale I n t e r a c t i o n i n the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l , " J o u r n a l o f Communication, XVI, (1966), 408-15. Doob, L. W.  "The Behaviour o f A t t i t u d e s , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, LIV  (1947), 135-56.  Dulany, Don E. "Awareness, Rules and P r o p o s i t i o n a l C o n t r o l : A Confront a t i o n w i t h S-R Behaviour Theory," Verbal Behaviour and General Theory. E d i t e d by T. R. Dixon and D. L. Horton. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1968.  138  F i s h b e i n , Martin. "A Behaviour Theory Approach t o the R e l a t i o n s between B e l i e f s about an Object and the A t t i t u d e toward the Object," A t t i t u d e and Behaviour Theory. E d i t e d by M a r t i n F i s h b e i n . New York: John Wiley and Sons I n c . , 1967. . "A Consideration o f B e l i e f s , and t h e i r Role i n A t t i t u d e Measurement," A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurement. E d i t e d by M a r t i n F i s h b e i n . New York: John Wiley and Sons-Inc., 1967. . " A t t i t u d e and the P r e d i c t i o n Behaviour," A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurement. E d i t e d by M a r t i n F i s h b e i n . . New York: John Wiley and Sons I n c . , 1967. G u e r t i n , Wilson H., and John P. B a i l e y , J r . I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Modern F a c t o r A n a l y s i s . Michigan: Edwards B r o t h e r s , Ine., 1970. G u l l l k s e n , Harold. "How t o Make Meaning More Meaningful," Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Technique. E d i t e d by James G. Snider and Charles E. Osgood. Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1969. K a i s e r , H. F. XXXV  "A Second-Generation L i t t l e J i f f y , " Psychometrika,  (1970), 401-16.  Kuhn, Thomas S. "Second Thoughts on Paradigms," P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1968. (mimeographed). . "Tne Function o f Dogma i n S c i e n t i f i c Research," S c i e n t i f i c Change. E d i t e d by A. C. Crombie. New York: B a s i c Books I n c . ,  • 1961. _.  The S t r u c t u r e o f S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions. Chicago, I l l i n o i s .  The U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1970. Mager, Robert F. Developing A t t i t u d e s Toward Learning. Fearon P u b l i s h e r s , 1968.  Palo A l t o :  Miron, Murray S., and Charles E. Osgood. "Language Behaviour: The M u l t i v a r i a t e S t r u c t u r e o f Q u a l i f i c a t i o n , " Handbook o f M u l t i v a r i a t e Experimental Psychology. E d i t e d by Raymond B. C a t t e l l . Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966. Nunnally, J . C.  "The A n a l y s i s o f P r o f i l e Data," P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n ,  LIX (1962), 311-9. .  Psychometric Theory.  New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,  1967.  Ohnmacht, Fred W., John H. Rosenbach, and Angel M. Pacheco. "Science Concepts i n Connotative Space," a paper read a t the American Educational Research A s s o c i a t i o n Annual Meeting, New York C i t y , February 5th, 1971.  139  Osgood, Charles E., George J . S u c i , and Percy H. Tannenbaum. The Measurement o f Meaning. Chicago, I l l i n o i s : U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s Press,  .  1957.  O v e r a l l , J . E. "Note on M u l t i v a r i a t e Methods f o r P r o f i l e A n a l y s i s , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , LXI (1961), 195-8. Rhine, R. J . "A Concept-Formation Approach t o A t t i t u d e A c q u i s i t i o n , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, LXV, (1958), 362-70. S c r i v e n , Michael. "Methodology o f E v a l u a t i o n , " American Educational Research, A s s o c i a t i o n Monograph Series on Curriculum E v a l u a t i o n , I . Chi cago: Rand McNally, 196 7. Smith, B. 0., M. Meux, e t a l . "A Study o f the S t r a t e g i e s o f Teaching," Urbana, I l l i n o i s : College o f Education, U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 1967. (mimeographed). Spearman, C. The Nature o f I n t e l l i g e n c e and the P r i n c i p l e s o f Cognition. New York: Macmillan Co., 1925. Stake, Robert E. "The Countenance o f Educational E v a l u a t i o n , " Teachers College Record, LXVTII (1967), 523-40. . The New Countenance on Educational E v a l u a t i o n . Centre f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l Research and Curriculum E v a l u a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Stephenson, W i l l i a m . " C o r r e l a t i n g Persons i n s t e a d o f Tests," and P e r s o n a l i t y , V I (1935), 17-24.  Character  . The Study o f Behaviour: Q-Technique and I t s Methodology. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press, 1949. T a y l o r , Peter A., and Thomas 0. Maguire. "A T h e o r e t i c a l E v a l u a t i o n Model," Manitoba J o u r n a l o f Educational Research, I (June, 1966),  12-17.  Thompson, G. H. The F a c t o r i a l A n a l y s i s of Human A b i l i t y . e r s i t y o f London Press, 1939.  London: Univ-  Tucker, Ledyard R. "Some Mathematical Notes on Three-Mode Factor A n a l y s i s , " Psychometrika, XXXI (September, 1966), 279-311. Wiggins, Nancy, and Martin F i s h b e i n . "Dimensions o f Semantic Space: A Problem o f I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s , " Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Techniques . E d i t e d by James G. Snider and Charles- E. Osgood. Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1969.  140  APPENDIX A  THE PHYSICS 110 COURSE RATIONALE  141  I . COURSE DESCRIPTION  The course under o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n by the P r o j e c t i s described below:  T i t l e o f the course:  Physics 110, Sections I and I I I (Mechanics, E l e c t r i c i t y , and Atomic Structure).  P r e r e q u i s i t e f o r taking the course:  High-school physics grade 11, o r 11 and 12, no r e s t r i c t i o n as t o q u a l i t y o f high-school physics grades, beyond a passing grade.  Enrollment:  S e c t i o n I : 419 students ( v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s i n d i c a t e d p r i o r t o course: 2 p h y s i c s , 35 sciences other than p h y s i c s , 59 engineering, 85 medicine, 67 others, 105 undecided). S e c t i o n I I I : 213 students ( v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s i n d i c a t e d p r i o r t o course: 3 p h y s i c s , 19 sciences other than p h y s i c s , 26 engineering, 29 medicine, 26 others, 64 undecided).  Time allotment t o course components:  Lectures (3 hours/week), T u t o r i a l s (1 hour/week), Laboratory (1.5 hours/ week).  Course examinations:  Midterm 1 and 2; Christmas; F i n a l ; Laboratory grades; T u t o r i a l grades; (Home assignments).  Textbooks:  S e c t i o n I : J . Orear, Fundamental Physics 2nd e d i t i o n . J . Orear, Programmed Manual o f College Physics ( o p t i o n a l ) S e c t i o n I I I : F. M i l l e r , J r . , College Physics 2nd e d i t i o n .  142  Instructors:  Lecture and T u t o r i a l Content:  Lectures: Sections I and I I I : W. Westphal T u t o r i a l s : Sections I and I I I : 12 F a c u l t y and Teaching A s s i s t a n t s In charge: W. Westphal Laboratory: Sections I and I I I : 26 Teaching A s s i s t a n t s I n charge: G. Page Section I : Kinematics: P a r t i c l e Dynamics; G r a v i t a t i o n ; Energy; E l e c - t r o s t a t i c s ; Electromagnetism; S p e c i a l R e l a t i v i t y ; Wave Motion and L i g h t ; Quanta and Atomic S t r u c t u r e ; N u c l e i . Section I I I : Kinematics; P a r t i c l e Dynamics; G r a v i t a t i o n ; Energy; Vibrations.and Waves; E l e c t r o s t a t i c s ; E l e c t r i c C i r c u i t s ; Electromagnetism; Wave O p t i c s ; Quanta and Atomic Structure; Nuclei.  Laboratory Experiments:  Time - Pendulums; Energy; Spectroscopy and Quantizations; I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the O s c i l l o s c o p e ; Detection and Properties of Radiation; E l e c t r i c . Circuits.  143  II. RATIONALE FOR THE COURSE - PHYSICS 110 (December 1969 revision) by Walter W. Westphal  The course consists of lectures, tutorials, laboratory sessions, home assignments, textbook reading, and examinations. operated independent of the course design.  The laboratory i s  It i s therefore considered as  an independent sub-course and has been' only partially included i n this rationale. Three groups of students are taking this course: a) Students xvhose future work strongly depends on knowledge of physics methods and facts ("hard-science" students such as i n physics, chemistry, and engineering), b) Students whose future work might depend to some extent on knowledge of physics methods and facts ("sideline-physics" students such as students i n the biosciences, medicine, and geology), c) Students whose future work w i l l , i f at a l l , be only indirectly related to physics ("non-science" students such as i n the social sciences, humanities, and law). The course had to be designed to suit these three groups, and to compromise between the varying degrees of their high school physics knowledge. The f i r s t part of the rationale deals with aspects and goals directly related to physics, and with differences i n the approach taken i n Sections I and III. In the second part, course goals, Independent of the subject matter taught, are stated.  Part 1; Aspects and goals directly related to physics. A primary goal of this course i s independent of the aspects given  144  below.  I enjoy p h y s i c s , and w i l l attempt t o make physics I n t e r e s t i n g  and enjoyable t o the students o f t h i s course. motivation f o r teaching p h y s i c s .  This i s my main  Although I cannot give a  r a t i o n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s aim, l e t alone an o b j e c t i v e way o f t e s t i n g f o r i t s achievement, I nevertheless regard I t as a l e g i t i m a t e b a s i s .for teaching.  From the viewpoint o f teaching t h i s course physics i s seen i n three aspects: 1) Physics I s a powerful way t o understand a wide range of n a t u r a l pheneomena. 2) Physics i s needed as a b a s i s f o r working i n science, technology, and, t o some extent, i n medicine. 3) Physics i s an e n t e r p r i s e o f s o c i e t y w i t h important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r human w e l f a r e .  Relevance o f these aspects t o t h e d i f f e r e n t student groups Aspect 1:  Physics i s a powerful way t o understand a wide range o f n a t u r a l phenomena.  The course w i l l attempt t o show, p r e f e r a b l y on the b a s i s o f I n t u i t i v e (anschaulich) i n s i g h t , supported by everyday experiences, . s t r u c t u r e s • i n and commonalities between n a t u r a l phenomena.  The  concepts "model" and "law" w i l l be d i s t i l l e d from these d i s c u s s i o n s . The course w i l l have had d i r e c t experience.  I t w i l l be shown t h a t  a few b a s i c laws are s u f f i c i e n t t o r e l a t e and thereby a vast amount o f experiences.  understand  I n conjunction w i t h the l a b o r a t o r y ,  i t w i l l be shown that by experimentation and observation s t r u c t u r e s i n nature can be found, and that experiences o f t h i s k i n d 145  are  b a s i c f o r a c q u i r i n g s c i e n t i f i c knowledge about nature.  This aspect o f the course i s considered t o be very important t o a l l students who are i n t e l l e c t u a l l y curious about the world they l i v e i n , who are i n c l i n e d toward i n t e l l e c t u a l l y e x c i t i n g experi e n c e s , and who are able t o see the beauty o f a l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e i n nature.  Students o f group ( a ) : F o r those i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s aspect and approach, a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward t h e i r f u t u r e work i n science i s expected.  Students o f group ( c ) : The approach taken should g i v e t h i s group some understanding o f s c i e n t i f i c thought and p o s s i b l y some appreci a t i o n o f physics as being more than merely concerned w i t h s o l v i n g c o n t r i v e d and t r i c k y problems.  I t i s hoped that students t o whom  science does not s t r o n g l y appeal w i l l nevertheless r e a l i z e that physics can be i n t e r e s t i n g .  To some e x t e n t , the course might  demystify some misconceptions about n a t u r a l phenomena.  One r e s u l t  would be the student's d e l i g h t i n understanding something p r e v i o u s l y u n r e l a t e d , and thereby i n s t i l l i n g , i n him the confidence that many more phenomena might be understandable f o r him.  De-mystification  i s , however, not an immediate g o a l o f t h i s course.  The student-  f a c u l t y r a t i o i s too h i g h t o a l l o w f o r the feedback r e q u i r e d t o accomplish t h i s g o a l .  146  Although i n my personal experience, s c i e n t i f i c thought t r a n s f e r s t o my t h i n k i n g outside o f s c i e n c e , I do not expect t h i s t r a n s f e r e f f e c t t o be achieved by many students i n a s i n g l e physics course. This course does not aim s p e c i f i c a l l y a t t h i s side e f f e c t .  I t i s f r e q u e n t l y s t a t e d that a science curriculum should provide the educated c i t i z e n w i t h a background f o r understanding o r even making d e c i s i o n s about matters concerned w i t h s c i e n c e , technology, o r science education.  I n my o p i n i o n , t h i s goal I s too ambitious  f o r a course o f t h i s k i n d .  One would have t o r e l a t e f r e q u e n t l y  t o current events i n science such as those p u b l i s h e d i n magazines and newspapers.  This time consuming approach has t o be s a c r i f i c e d  f o r a more thorough treatment o f the scheduled course material:.  While an h i s t o r i c a l approach might be appropriate f o r t h i s group, the h i s t o r i c a l development o f physics w i l l , however, only be treated occasionally.  Students o f group (b):  To some e x t e n t , the goals s t a t e d f o r  groups (a) and-(c) a l s o apply t o group (b).  Aspect 2: Physics i s needed as a b a s i s f o r work i n s c i e n c e , technology, and, t o some extent, i n medicine. Students o f group ( a ) :  A working knowledge o f b a s i c physics con-  cepts, laws, and procedures i s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e i r f u t u r e p r o f e s s i o n s . These w i l l be e x e n p l i f i e d i n s e l e c t e d areas o f p h y s i c s . standing p r i n c i p l e s i s o f primary importance. 147  Under-  S p e c i f i c knowledge  and s k i l l s needed I n t h e i r professions w i l l be taught i n subsequent courses anyway.  I n t h i s course, problem s o l v i n g w i l l be regarded as a means t o obtain a f e e l i n g o f how physics works r a t h e r than t o teach to work i n p h y s i c s .  how  Analyzing a problem s i t u a t i o n f o r the r e l e v a n t  physics needed t o solve the problem i s more important than the actual solution.  The r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e a l s i t u a t i o n s and  the conceptual model being used t o deal w i t h them w i l l be s t r e s s e d .  S c i e n t i f i c methodology and i t s l i m i t a t i o n s w i l l be more o f t e n an i m p l i c i t part o f the course than an e x p l i c i t teaching g o a l .  The course w i l l not deal w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n s o f p h y s i c s .  This  aspect i s not important f o r t h i s group i n t h i s course because i t w i l l be d e a l t w i t h i n t h e i r subsequent courses.  Students of group (b):  For t h i s group, the course w i l l h o p e f u l l y  give encouragement t o use physics and physics equipment i n t h e i r work.  P r a c t i c a l s k i l l s such as problem s o l v i n g techniques,  graphing, experimenting, are seen as valuable t o o l s f o r students of t h i s group.  The laboratory part o f the course i s considered,  p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant f o r developing these s k i l l s .  I t would be d e s i r a b l e , f o r p r a c t i c a l reasons as w e l l as f o r m o t i v a t i o n , t o d e a l w i t h physics a p p l i c a t i o n s i n areas of the 148  v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s o f these students.  For t h i s purpose, the  course would have t o be d i v i d e d i n t o sub-courses, and outside speakers should be i n v o l v e d .  L i m i t a t i o n s beyond the i n s t r u c t o r ' s  c o n t r o l make t h i s l i n e o f approach Impossible.  Students o f group ( c ) : The aspect under d i s c u s s i o n does- not r e l a t e t o t h i s group.  Aspect 3:  Physics i s an e n t e r p r i s e o f s o c i e t y c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to human w e l f a r e .  This aspect i s e q u a l l y important f o r a l l students i n the course. I t is,-however, only an i m p l i c i t g o a l o f t h i s course.  Applications"  o f physics would have t o be taught t o exemplify t h i s aspect.  How-  ever, occasions g i v i n g an opportunity f o r d i s c u s s i o n w i l l d e f i n i t e l y be used t c d e a l w i t h the mutual r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f science and society.  Although i t might happen a c c i d e n t a l l y , no d i r e c t attempt w i l l be made t o improve the p u b l i c image o f s c i e n t i s t s .  While t h i s might  be done by teaching the h i s t o r y o f p h y s i c s , i t i s not regarded as an o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s course.  D i f f e r e n c e i n emphasis given i n ' S e c t i o n s I and I I I o f Physics 110 In S e c t i o n I , t h e f i r s t aspect o f physics given above w i l l be more s t r o n g l y emphasized than i n S e c t i o n I I I .  More time w i l l be spent  on general background, and problem-solving w i l l be de-emphasized. There w i l l be a stronger accent on aspects such as the meaning o f  149  the concept "law", o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a model and r e a l i t y . This tendency w i l l show up i n the t o p i c s s e l e c t e d , e.g., t r e a t i n g r e l a t i v i t y a t the expense o f a p p l i e d e l e c t r i c i t y .  The t e x t (Orear)  has been chosen according t o these aims.  The advantage o f this.approach i s seen i n the brpader scope o f concepts o f f e r e d .  There w i l l be the r i s k t h a t without s u f f i c i e n t  p r a c t i c e w i t h s o l v i n g problems, some students might not o b t a i n an i n t u i t i v e understanding o f the subjects taught.  E s p e c i a l l y i n the  second term, students might have d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a d j u s t i n g t o the d i f f e r e n c e s between high-school physics and the s t y l e and content o f t h i s course.  Section I I I w i l l be c l o s e r t o the approach taken i n high-school, Although the main goal w i l l be, as i n S e c t i o n I , an understanding of principles.  Part 2: Objectives independent o f subject matter Exams and motivation The North American system of education leans h e a v i l y on m o t i v a t i n g students by continuous grading. examination-oriented.  Therefore, students are h i g h l y  They are forced t o d i r e c t t h e i r a t t e n t i o n  p r i m a r i l y t o grades, genuine i n t e r e s t and d i v e r s i t y are o f secondary  importance.  150  This course cannot exclude grading as i t has t o f i t i n t o the u n i v e r s i t y system.  I t w i l l , however, t r y t o de-enphasize exams  as f a r as p o s s i b l e , and t o make the best use of the exams as a teaching t o o l i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n purpose.  For reducing  the examination pressure, a grading system w i l l be used t h a t allows the student t o f a i l one or two of the four courae without endangering h i s f i n a l grade.  examinations  The exams w i l l be used as  a teaching t o o l by c a r e f u l l y designing them as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e along the l i n e s o f the course r a t i o n a l e .  This i s done t o a v o i d  a mis-match between the aims of the students and the goals o f the i n s t r u c t o r .  S p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i l l be given t o the f i r s t  course examination, and care w i l l be taken t o maintain the same approach throughout the course.  A compromise w i l l have t o be  found between a c h i e v i n g t h i s g o a l and the t e c h n i c a l problems o f . grading.  I t would be d e s i r a b l e t o e l i m i n a t e student competition from t h i s coursej as the students have d i f f e r e n t high-school backgrounds. This could be done by s e t t i n g o b j e c t i v e standards, known t o the students, i n s t e a d of u s i n g a f l o a t i n g standard d e r i v e d from the average student performance i n t h i s course.  Time l i m i t a t i o n s d i d  not allow making the necessary preparations f o r t h i s  approach.  Exams and d i v e r s i t y Mass examinations tend t o promote u n i f o r m i t y . To make the exams o f the course l e s s uniform, choices between d i f f e r e n t types o f  151  questions w i l l be provided t o ' s u i t the i n c l i n a t i o n s , o f d i f f e r e n t kinds of students. be given.  No standard-type m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e exams w i l l  The l a r g e number of students i n v o l v e d p r o h i b i t s o f f e r i n g  the'choice between w r i t t e n and o r a l exams.  Student  involvement An attempt w i l l be made t o s t i m u l a t e student i n i t i a t i v e and p a r t - . i c i p a t i o n i n making d e c i s i o n s about the conduct of the course. Students comments and suggestions w i l l be asked f o r , v e r b a l l y and by q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Part of the feedback w i l l come from the instruments designed f o r the e d u c a t i o n a l study of t h i s course. Care w i l l be taken t o make the students aware of the f a c t that they a c t u a l l y have an i n f l u e n c e on t h i s course.  Besides the a c t u a l purpose o f o b t a i n i n g student feedback f o r course improvement, there are two reasons f o r f o s t e r i n g student involvement.  Student m o t i v a t i o n towards t a k i n g t h i s course i s  expected t o increase from these experiences even though most students are p a r t o f a c a p t i v e audience.  Secondly, i t i s hoped  that t h i s experience w i l l encourage them, g e n e r a l l y , t o seek more p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the shaping of t h e i r academic  152  environment.  APPENDIX B  THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL INSTRUMENT  153  PHYSICS EDUCATION EVALUATION PROJECT  The purpose o f t h i s study I s t o measure your p e r c e p t i o n o f c e r t a i n concepts r e l a t e d t o p h y s i c s and p h y s i c s courses, by having you judge these concepts against a s e r i e s o f d e s c r i p t i v e s c a l e s .  You are  •asked t o make your judgments pn the b a s i s o f what these concepts' mean to you.  THIS IS NOT A TEST, as there are no r i g h t or wrong answers,  and your responses w i l l i i i no way i n f l u e n c e your grades i n t h i s course. You w i l l f i n d the concepts t o be judged i n b o l d face l e t t e r s . For  example, REGISTRATION AT U.B.C.  Below t h i s headline concept are a s e r i e s o f d e s c r i p t i v e s c a l e s against which you w i l l judge the concept.  An example o f a d e s c r i p t i v e scale i s  c h a o t i c == == == == == == == ordered I f you f e e l that the headline concept i s very closely, r e l a t e d t o one end of the scale,you should respond: chaotic •°" == == == == == == ordered or chaotic == == == == == == •» ordered I f you f e e l that the headline concept i s q u i t e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o one o r the  other end o f the scale (but not extremely), you should respond: c h a o t i c == "» == == == == == ordered . or chaotic == == == == == »•» == ordered  154  I f the headline concept seems only s l i g h t l y r e l a t e d t o one s i d e as opposed t o the other s i d e (but i s not r e a l l y n e u t r a l ) , then you should respond: c h a o t i c == == "» =- == == == ordered or c h a o t i c == == == == «•» ~  ==  ordered  .The d i r e c t i o n toward which you respond, of course, depends upon which of the two ends of the s c a l e seem most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the t h i n g you are judging.  I f you consider the object t o be n e u t r a l on the s c a l e , both s i d e s of the s c a l e e q u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the o b j e c t , or i f the s c a l e i s comp l e t e l y i r r e l e v a n t , unrelated t o the o b j e c t , then you should respond i n the middle  space: chaotic == == == «"» == —  == ordered  IMPORTANT: (1) Be sure t o respond t o every s c a l e f o r every  concept.  (2) Do not make more than one response on a given s c a l e . (3) Respond using the p e n c i l provided. Work at a f a i r l y r a p i d pace. items.  Do not puzzle over i n d i v i d u a l  Give your f i r s t impressions, the immediate " f e e l i n g s " about  the items.  On the other hand, please do not be c a r e l e s s , because i t  i s your t r u e impressions that are important. Below i s part of a sample page f o r you t o f i l l i n f o r p r a c t i c e . Do not spend more than a few seconds marking each s c a l e . Idea i s what i s wanted.  Your f i r s t  You can work f a s t e r i f you do the f o l l o w i n g :  155  F i r s t , form a p i c t u r e i n your mind of t h e headline concept ( i n t h i s case " U n i v e r s i t y learning"). Then, read each s c a l e and make your responses very r a p i d l y .  UNIVERSITY 'LEARNING valuable == == == == == == == worthless d i f f i c u l t == == == == == == == easy b e n e f i c i a l f o r s o c i e t y == == == == == == == harmful f o r s o c i e t y . mysterious =- == == == == == == understandable dead == == == == == == == a l i v e  PLEASE DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO. THANK YOU.  156  Name  Lost  First  TEST NUMBER SHEET NUMBER  long as the  pair  area between  the  0  1  2  3  4  If you change your mind, erase your first  o  1  2  3  __4  5  6  7  8  9  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Make your mark as  lines, and completely  pair of lines.  REGISTRATION NUMBER 5 .JL „A. .6.'.  .JL .JL .JL .JL  DIRECTIONS: of  2  fill in the  mark COMPLETELY.  ...!..  .J._ .J.. 1  2  7  .JL  7  8  9  8  9  _.3_  4  5  6  3  .A.  -JL  .JL  3  4  5 .  6  J...  8  9  5  6  7  8  9  ICS important  :rrr:  not applicable : r : : : beneficial for society -----  unimportant  important  harmful for society  beneficial for society  passive : : : r = never inte!ectually exciting  -  oriented toward principles  passive sometimes intellectually exciting  never intellectually exciting  oriented toward facts  mysterious  r:;i:  valuable zzzzz small  oriented toward principles  understandable worthless  =  efficient  needed by society  not needed by society  challenging  not challenging  challenging  good  _  miraculous  bad  good .  rational  dead - z  z z  intuitive weak never fun nice moving iould be guided by society : : : : : rewarding difficult  theoretical  should not be guided by society  should be guided by society  unrewarding  rewarding  easy  difficult  straight forward  discouraging  always dull ugly  beautiful  slow  fast  slow clarifies  complicates narrow  unnecessary  necessary  :::::  large  n o t  challenging  •  rational  -  alive  -  theoretical  •  wide meaningless 15  7  'innccessary  -  unrewarding  •  ::r:: Y e3S  zzzzz r  n o t  'eiesting  no opportunity for initiative  „  ™  encouraging ulways dull  :::::  •  iR  straight forward :::::  never dull  beautiful  meaningful  •  should not be guided by society ™  tricky  encouraging  meaningless  worthless  awful  still  opportunity for initiative  wide  "  always fun  no opportunity for initiative  clarifies  understandable  Strong  awful  interesting  never dull  Icctually exciting oriented toward . facts  bad  never fun .  opportunity for  discouraging  :r::r  weak .  always fun  •  sometimes intel- •  needed by society"  intuitive .  strong  active  Inefficient  dead -  interesting  tricky 2.-,zzz  :::::  miraculous .  alive  not interesting  initiative zzzzz  -----  small  inefficient  ' .  society  valuable  not needed by society -----  applicable harmful for  :::::  mysterious  large  efficient --—  unimportant  not applicable  applicable  "3'y  rr;::  f n s  :::::  complicates  '  • ™  ™ *•  znarrow  °*  -----  *•  meniiiiKjhil necessary  Name.  Last  First  TEST NUMBER  REGISTRATION NUMBER  SHEET NUMBER  .0.  ..4.  ._5_.  ..6 .  .0.  .4.  .5.  -6.  .0.  .4.  ..5.  DIRECTIONS: Make your mark as long as the pair  ..?..  0  4  .5  _7_  of lines, and completely fill in the area between the  0  4  5  0  JL  pair of lines. If you change your mind, erase your first  4  5  mark COMPLETELY.  0  4  A. 1  5  6  7  JL 9  7  9  1ATURAL PHENOMENA important : : : : : not applicable i z : : : beneficial for society passive  zizzz  never intel* actually exciting  oriented toward  principles -----  mysterious  unimportant applicable  not applicable  applicable  harmful for society  beneficial for society  harmful for society  active sometimes intellectually exciting  never intellectually exciting  oriented toward facts  valuable  large  small ~zz~efficient - not needed by society -~zzz  inefficient  efficient  needed by society  not needed by society --'  not challenging  challenging --  z z z  challenging -- -=  bad  good  nice  not Interesting  opportunity for  no opportunity for initiative  zzzzz  tricky discouraging — - -  unnecessary  difficult . . . interesting . . . opportunity fo>"  initiative- ~~  straight forward  discouraging- —  always dull  never dull  ugly  —  narrow meaningful i 15  ^  worthless  "  large  "  inefficient  "  m  needed by society™ ~  rational  •  alive  "  theoretical  "  strong  •  always fun  ™  awful  *"  still  unrewarding easy not interesting no opportunity for initiative  —  straight forward  ™"  —  encouraging always dull  fast  slow  complicates  "  ™"  ugly  beautiful  fast  necessary  :  tricky  encouraging  understandable  should not be _ guided by society  rewarding ---  easy  interesting  meaningless  should be guided by society  unrewarding  difficult  wide  moving . . .  should not be guided by society  rewarding  clarifies  nice --.  still  lould be guided by society  slow  never fun . . .  awful  moving  beautiful  weak  always fun  never fun  never dull  intuitive . . .  Strong  weak  initiative  dead --•  theoretical  intuitive  -  bad  miraculous  alive  dead  loctualiy exciting _  oriented toward  not challenging  good  rational  mirapulous  sometimes intel- «  • facts  understandable worthless  valuable  •  oriented toward principles  clarifies  —  wide  —  complicates  ~ ™"  narrow  meaningless  meaningful  unnecessary  necessary  ~ ™"  Name  Last  First  TEST NUMBER  REGISTRATION NUMBER  SHEET NUMBER  DIRECTIONS: Make your mark as long as the pair  __Q_.  1  .0..  ..P..  -3..  .A..  .J__  2  3  4  1  2  ..3.  _4 4  . 5..  -6..  5  6  7  .A.  .6.  7  5  7  ..P..  _ _1 _  6  7  of lines, and completely fill in the area between the  0  1 _  2  3  4  5  6 _  7  pair of lines. If you change your mind, erase your first  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  mark COMPLETELY.  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  PHYSICS  ii: important  unimportant  not applicable : : : : : beneficial for society  harmful for society  passive  active  never intelectually exciting principles  small efficient  = : = I  -  challenging - — good -----  zzzzz  small efficient  inefficient  -----  "  inefficient  "  not challenging  bad  i  bad  good miraculous -----  intuitive weak  rational  "  alive  "  theoretical  "  strong  •  always fun  never fun  always fun  awful  nice  L  should be guided  should not be guided by society  rewarding  easy  difficult  difficult  not Interesting  interesting opportunity for initiative  interesting  no -opportunity for initiative  tricky — =  discouraging ----never dull — - -  II:::  should not be guided by society  _,—  unrewarding  "  easy  "  not interesting  •  :::::  no opportunity f r initiative  .  :::::  straight forward  zzzzz  :::::  encouraging  -_:zzz  :::::  by society  unrewarding  rewarding  opportunity  zzzzz ;  ;  -  :  --_zzz  for  encouraging  (iiSClllll"'* .!' ".'  always duit  never dull  11  1  beautitul  ugly  beautiful  :::::  stow  fast  Slow  -----  ciiirifics  complicates narrow  meaningless  meaningful  unnecessary  necessary  wide meanir.gless 159  unnecessary  -  -  m  z  initiative tricky ; : : : :  straight forward  "  still  moving -_zzz  by society : : : : :  wide  *  large  challenging  moving  clarifies  worthless  not challenging  strong  ihould be guided  "  needed by society  theoretical  never fun  u  understandable  needed by society"  dead  weak  •  not needed by society  dead intuitive  u  valuable  worthless  u  active  oriented toward facts  mysterious  •  sometimes intel- Icctually exciting  -----  oriented toward principles  rational  miraculous  zz-zzz  never intellectually exciting  large  not needed by society -----  harmful for society  passive  understandable  valuable — - -  applicable  beneficial for society  oriented toward facts  mysterious  unimportant  not applicable  sometimes intellectually exciting  oriented toward  ;;: ::  important  applicable  INSTRUCTO  z  0  always dull  "  9'v  u  fast complicates  "  nnriow  "  "zzz ineon'nrjful necessary  "  Name.  Last  First  TEST NUMBER  REGISTRATION  SHEET NUMBER  2.  ..3.  .£..  .A. .A. .A..  NUMBER 5  ..6.  7  ..5.  ..6.  ..7.. 7  2. 2.  ..3.  DIRECTIONS: Make your mark as long as the pair  2  ..3.  of lines, and completely fill in the area between the  2  3  4  5  6  pair of lines. If you change your mind, erase your first  2  3  __4_  5  6  mark COMPLETELY.  2  3  4  5  '6  1JCP TOWAiD P H Y S K Important :  unimportant  not applicable ;  applicable  beneficial for . society -  harmful for society  never intciictualiy exciting -  sometimes intellectually exciting  oriented toward _ principles  oriented toward facts  :  mysterious  :  :r::;  understandable  zzzz:  worthless large  small "zz Z  efficient  zzzzz  inefficient  not needed by society  -----  challenging  z;:=i  n  good  -----  bad  mirapulous  -----  needed by society  dead ----intuitive  o  rational a  -  challenging  t  ''  v e  theoretical strong  weak  always fun  never fun  awful  nice moving hould be guided  by society : i z : : rewarding difficult  should not be --zzz guided by society -----  zzzzz  e a s  interesting  y  interesting  n o t  opportunity for initiative  no opportunity (or initiative straight forward  tricky discouraging -----  unrewarding  zzzzz  encouraging  never dull  -----  beautiful  :::::  slow  -----  fast  r;:r:  complicates  clarifies  narrow  wide meaningless unnecessary  always dull  zzzzz  meaningful necessary  160  .9.  ..6.  'J:  ...3.  ..5.  ..8.  7  J.. 7  9 8_  9  8  9  8  9  APPENDIX C  THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE FACTOR STRUCTURES FOR GROUP A. AND GROUP B  161  FACTOR COMPARISON - GROUP A VS GROUP B  CONCEPT  GROUP A  GROUP B  1. Physics  I II III  I II III  2. Problem S o l v i n g  I II III. IV  II ' I I I (?) IV -I  3. N a t u r a l Phenomena  I II III IV  I II -III IV  4. I n t e l l e c t u a l Excitement  I II III  II III -I  5. My Previous Physics Course  ,I II III IV  I II (?) ' TV  6. My Previous Physics Instructor  I II III IV  I -II 17 III  7. My Expectations Toward Physics 110  I • II III  III -I II  162  GROUP A VARIMAX FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ALL CONCEPTS CONCEPT NO. 1: PHYSICS  FACTOR I (13.68?)  .816 .694 .643 .640 .591 .590 .510 .499 .409 .379 .358 .351 .347 .321 .306  interesting - not interesting • always fun - never fun rewarding - unrewarding important - unimportant never dull - always dull sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting valuable - worthless challenging - not challenging opportunity for i n i t i a t i v e - no opportunity for i n i t i a t i v e encouraging - discouraging nice - awful alive - dead good - bad beautiful - ugly clarifies - complicates  FACTOR I I (9.68?)  .693 .675 .585 .558 .521 .520 .447 .427 .363 .315  large - small strong - weak wide - narrow moving - s t i l l alive - dead active - passive efficient - inefficient good - bad beautiful - ugly fast - slow  FACTOR I I I (8.52?)  •735 .689 .619 .562 .522 .469 .388 .348  straight forward - tricky easy - d i f f i c u l t clarifies - complicates understandable - mysterious encouraging - discouraging rational - miraculous meaningful - meaningless never dull - always dull 163  CONCEPT NO. 2: PROBLEM SOLVING FACTOR I (12.10%) .7^6 .731 .683 .624 .579 .517 .486 .460 .446 .317 .313 . 301  important - unimportant v a l u a b l e - worthless necessary - unnecessary needed by s o c i e t y - not needed by s o c i e t y b e n e f i c i a l f o r s o c i e t y - harmful f o r s o c i e t y meaningful - meaningless efficient - inefficient a p p l i c a b l e - not a p p l i c a b l e c h a l l e n g i n g - not c h a l l e n g i n g rewarding - unrewarding b e a u t i f u l - ugly a c t i v e - passive  FACTOR I I (7.11%) .696 understandable - mysterious .651 easy - d i f f i c u l t .612 s t r a i g h t forward - t r i c k y .497 r a t i o n a l - miraculous .351 c l a r i f i e s - complicates .331 e f f i c i e n t - i n e f f i c i e n t .327 encouraging - d i s c o u r a g i n g .296 a p p l i c a b l e - not a p p l i c a b l e  FACTOR  I I I (9.07%)  .711 wide - narrow .705 s t r o n g - weak '.677 large - s m a l l .570 moving - s t i l l .463 a l i v e - dead .458 b e a u t i f u l - ugly .451 f a s t - slow .342 a c t i v e - passive .325 good - bad .310 n i c e - awful  FACTOR IV (12.08%) .707 .699  always fun - never fun I n t e r e s t i n g - not i n t e r e s t i n g  164  FACTOR IV (12.08%)  .653 .607 .586 •.581 .511 .437 .412 .403 .394 .358  never d u l l - always d u l l rewarding - unrewarding encouraging - discouraging n i c e - awful sometimes i n t e l l e c t u a l l y e x c i t i n g - never i n t e l l e c t u a l l y e x c i t i n g c h a l l e n g i n g - not c h a l l e n g i n g c l a r i f i e s - complicates moving - s t i l l a l i v e - dead good - bad  I65  CONCEPT NO. 3: NATURAL PHENOMENA FACTOR I (10.27%)  .781 .673 .658 .652 .578 .546 .429 .428 .396  strong - weak large - small alive - dead wide - narrow moving - s t i l l fast - slow beautiful - ugly . efficient - inefficient active - passive  FACTOR I I (7.39%)  .737 understandable - mysterious .723 straight forward - tricky .571 rational - miraculous .496 easy - d i f f i c u l t .486 clarifies - complicates .387 applicable - not applicable  FACTOR I I I (7.36%)  .714 .525 .465 .465 .455 .441 .352 .298  Interesting - not Interesting sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting important - unimportant meaningful - meaningless never dull - always dull opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative necessary - unnecessary applicable - not applicable  FACTOR IV (9.91%)  .636 .618 .614 .605 .563 .418 .417 .402 .369 .312 .307 .320  beneficial for society - harmful for society valuable -.worthless. good - bad needed by society - not needed by society rewarding - unrewarding necessary - unnecessary always fun - never fun nice - awful encouraging - discouraging efficient - inefficient beautiful - ugly should be guided by society - should not be guided by society  CONCEPT NO. 4: IMELLECTUAL EXCITEMENT  FACTOR I (12.25?)  .647 .642 .628 .596 .592 .550 .543 .463 .402 .392 .349 .339 .333 .306  large - small wide - narrow strong - weak fast - slow moving - s t i l l alive - dead beautiful - ugly nice - awful good - bad efficient - inefficient always fun - never fun active - passive meaningful - meaningless never dull - always dull  FACTOR I I (7.34?)  .644 straight forward - tricky .586 understandable - mysterious .540 easy - d i f f i c u l t .510 never dull - always dull .443 encouraging - discouraging .441 rational - miraculous .429 clarifies - complicates .347 valuable - worthless .329 " necessary - unnecessary  FACTOR I I I (12.22?)  .642 .638 .631 .595 .524 .463 .458 .4ll .383 .377 .377 .358 .350 • 335 .316  rewarding - unrewarding challenging - not challenging interesting - not interesting opporunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative valuable - worthless meaningful - meaningless important - unimportant necessary - unnecessary should be guided by society - should not be guided by society active - passive always fun - never fun needed by society - not needed by society good - bad beneficial for society - harmful for society straight forward - tricky 167  CONCEPT NO. 5: MY PREVIOUS PHYSICS COURSE FACTOR I (29.55?)  .857 .820 .813 .772 .729 .723 .717 .710 .663 .658 .605 .596 .595 .589 .566 .559 .530 .520 .458 .450 .409 .382 .353 .350 .303 .301 .372  v a l u a b l e -. worthless i n t e r e s t i n g - not i n t e r e s t i n g rewarding - unrewarding c h a l l e n g i n g - not c h a l l e n g i n g important - unimportant sometimes i n t e l l e c t u a l l y ' e x c i t i n g - never i n t e l l e c t u a l l y e x c i t i n g meaningful - meaningless necessary - unnecessary good - bad a p p l i c a b l e - not a p p l i c a b l e efficient - inefficient opportunity f o r i n i t i a t i v e - no opportunity f o r i n i t i a t i v e a l i v e - dead a c t i v e - passive never d u l l - always d u l l moving - s t i l l n i c e - awful needed by s o c i e t y - not needed by s o c i e t y s t r o n g -- weak b e n e f i c i a l f o r s o c i e t y - harmful f o r s o c i e t y encouraging - d i s c o u r a g i n g understandable - mysterious c l a r i f i e s — complicates b e a u t i f u l - ugly f a s t - slow r a t i o n a l - miraculous easy - d i f f i c u l t  FACTOR I I (9-64?) .757 .715 .694 .618 .601 .409 .355 .328 .306  s t r a i g h t forward - t r i c k y understandable - mysterious easy - d i f f i c u l t encouraging - d i s c o u r a g i n g c l a r i f i e s - complicates r a t i o n a l - miraculous always fun - never f u n meaningful - meaningless n i c e - awful  168  FACTOR III (4.40%) .614 .429 .361 .303 .324 .339  theoretical - intuitive b e n e f i c i a l f o r s o c i e t y - harmful f o r s o c i e t y needed by s o c i e t y - not needed by s o c i e t y o r i e n t e d towards p r i n c i p l e s - o r i e n t e d towards f a c t s always fun - never f u n never d u l l - always d u l l  FACTOR IV (10.02%) .651 .621 .612 .533 .514 .509 .371 .347 .345 .400  l a r g e - small wide - narrow f a s t - slow strong - weak b e a u t i f u l - ugly moving - s t i l l a c t i v e - passive good - bad n i c e - awful r a t i o n a l - miraculous  169  CONCEPT NO. 6: MY PREVIOUS PHYSICS INSTRUCTOR FACTOR I (36.63%)  .845 .827 .818 •779 .769 .762 .749 •735 .730 .729 .715 .705 .703 .699 .689 .674 .648 .632 .631 .592 .589 .520 .508 .410 .371 .318  "  interesting - not interesting valuable - worthless efficient - inefficient good - bad sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting important - unimportant alive - dead active - passive never dull - always dull needed by society - not needed by society challenging - not challenging clarifies - complicates encouraging - discouraging necessary - unnecessary rewarding - unrewarding moving - s t i l l always fun - never fun strong - weak beneficial for society - harmful for society opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for i n i t i a t i v e understandable - mysterious fast - slow nice - awful beautiful - ugly applicable - not applicable wide - narrow  FACTOR I I (8.19%)  .734 .687 .552 .452 .431 .389 .309 .306  easy - d i f f i c u l t straight forward - tricky understandable - mysterious encouraging -r discouraging clarifies - complicates nice - awful beautiful - ugly rational - miraculous  FACTOR I I I (8.28%)  .740 large - small .597 wide - narrow .468 strong - weak 170  FACTOR I I I (8.28%)  .400. .399 .398 .351 .345 .306 .360  f a s t - slow moving - s t i l l always fun - never fun rewarding - unrewarding n i c e - awful opportunity f o r i n i t i a t i v e - no opportunity f o r i n i t i a t i v e should be guided by s o c i e t y - should not be guided by s o c i e t y  FACTOR I V (4.11%)  .625 .454 .326 .317 .301  theoretical - intuitive r a t i o n a l - miraculous o r i e n t e d towards p r i n c i p l e s - o r i e n t e d toward f a c t s a p p l i c a b l e - not a p p l i c a b l e never d u l l - always d u l l  171  CONCEPT NO. 7: MY EXPECTATIONS TOWARD PHYSICS 110 FACTOR I (21.91?) .785 .7^9 .714 .675 .658 .654 .653 .627 .611* .608 .582 .565 .540 .510 .493 .477 .438 .387 .347 .341 .338 .315 .311 t  valuable - worthless important - unimportant necessary - unnecessary i n t e r e s t i n g - not i n t e r e s t i n g rewarding - unrewarding a p p l i c a b l e - not a p p l i c a b l e . c h a l l e n g i n g - not c h a l l e n g i n g meaningful - meaningless needed by s o c i e t y - not needed by s o c i e t y sometimes i n t e l l e c t u a l l y e x c i t i n g - never i n t e l l e c t u a l l y e x c i t i n g efficient - inefficient always f u n - never f u n b e n e f i c i a l f o r s o c i e t y - harmful f o r s o c i e t y a l i v e - dead good bad active - passive n i c e - awful opportunity f o r i n i t i a t i v e - no opportunity f o r i n i t i a t i v e l a r g e - small encouraging - discouraging c l a r i f i e s - complicates never d u l l - always d u l l nKiving — s t i l l  FACTOR I I (12.36?) .756 easy - d i f f i c u l t .742 s t r a i g h t forward - t r i c k y .708 encouraging - discouraging .644 c l a r i f i e s - complicates .597 . understandable - mysterious ...482. nej*er d u l l - always d u l l • .481 r a t i o n a l . - miraculous .432 meaningful - meaningless .371 moving - s t i l l .341 always f u n - never fun .340 I n t e r e s t i n g - not i n t e r e s t i n g .321 should be guided by s o c i e t y - should not be guided by s o c i e t y  172  FACTOR I I I (10.93?) .699 .660 .633 .586 .574 .560 .536 .432 ,4l6 .368 .314  wide - narrow strong - weak f a s t - slow moving - s t i l l l a r g e - small a l i v e - dead b e a u t i f u l - ugly n i c e - awful good - bad a c t i v e - passive always f u n - never fun  GROUP B VARIMAX FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR AIL CONCEPTS CONCEPT NO. 1: PHYSICS  FACTOR I (15.64%)  .773 .739 .722* .697 .580 .564 .562 .558 .555 .507 .501 .458 .441 .351  always fun - never fun Interesting - not interesting never dull - always dull nice - awful moving - s t i l l fast - slow opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for i n i t i a t i v e alive - dead beautiful - ugly sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting encouraging - discouraging active - passive meaningful - meaningless easy - d i f f i c u l t  FACTOR I I (8.46%)  .605 .481 .478 .451 .429 .400 .400 .386 .383 .375 .372 .365  large - small good - bad strong - weak valuable - worthless alive - dead beneficial for society - harmful for society applicable - not applicable wide - narrow active - passive rewarding - unrewarding important - unimportant necessary - unnecessary  FACTOR I I I (9.73%)  .607 clarifies - complicates .583 understandable - mysterious .579 straight forward - tricky .555 valuable - worthless .544 efficient - inefficient 174  FACTOR III (9.7335) .506 • important - unimportant .452 needed by society - not needed by society .442 meaningful - meaningless .437 necessary - unnecessary .422 encouraging - discouraging .372 beneficial for society - not beneficial for society .315 applicable - not applicable  175  CONCEPT NO. 2: PROBLEM SOLVING  FACTOR I (15.42?)  .769 never dull - always dull .756 always fun - never fun .733 interesting - not interesting .619 moving - s t i l l .600 alive - dead .583 nice - awful .578 opportunity for i n i t i a t i v e - no opportunity for i n i t i a t i v e .534 . active - passive .513 rewarding - unrewarding .474 encouraging - discouraging .459 sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting .442 fast - slow .407 beautiful - ugly .320 easy - d i f f i c u l t .312 meaningful - meaningless .304 clarifies - complicates .301 applicable - not applicable FACTOR I I (9-92?)  .702 .692 .583 .494 .486 .443 .399 .363 .304  needed by society - not needed by society understandable - mysterious necessary - unnecessary beneficial for society - not beneficial for society valuable - worthless rational - miraculous clarifies - complicates efficient - inefficient important - unimportant  FACTOR I I I (7-33?)  .572 .563 .480 .458 .396 .316 .590 .619  challenging - not challenging valuable - worthless important - unimportant necessary - unnecessary rewarding - unrewarding applicable - not applicable straight forward - tricky easy - d i f f i c u l t  176  FACTOR I V (8.37%) .779 .705 .644 .438 .407 .403 .377 .333 .<3l8  large - small strong - weak wide - narrow good - bad a l i v e - dead active - passive b e a u t i f u l - ugly moving - s t i l l fast - slow  CONCEPT NO. 3: NATURAL PHENOMENA FACTOR I (12.34%)  .756 strong - weak .743 large - small .708 alive - dead .643 wide - narrow .634 moving - s t i l l .609 fast - slow .584 active - passive .432 efficient - inefficient .422 beautiful - ugly .350 never dull - always dull  FACTOR I I (6.90%)  .759 .679 .621 .534 .418  understandable - mysterious straight forward - tricky rational - mysterious clarifies - complicates easy - d i f f i c u l t  FACTOR I I I (8.63%)  •753 .518 .502 .486 .465 .442 .419 .399 .361 >'354 .331  sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting interesting - not interesting opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative important - unimportant applicable - not applicable never dull - always dull encouraging - discouraging valuable - worthless active - passive meaningful - .meaningless always fun - never fun  FACTOR I V (10.43%)  .701 .693 .568 .558 .532 .519 .509  beneficial for society - harmful for society good- bad rewarding - unrewarding needed by society - not needed by society necessary - unnecessary valuable - worthless encouraging - discouraging 178  FACTOR IV (10:4335) .504 .359 .320 .303  n i c e - awful b e a u t i f u l - ugly always fun - never fun efficient - inefficient  CONCEPT NO. 4: INTELLECTUAL EXCriEMENT  FACTOR I (16.44?)  .732 .717 .640 .627 .621 .592 .554 .532 .515' .511 .496 .484 .462 .441 .433 .389 .310  valuable - worthless rewarding - unrewarding interesting - not interesting needed by society - not needed by- society beneficial for society - harmful for society necessary - unnecessary important - unimportant. meaningful - meaningless never dull - always dull good - bad challenging - not challenging encouraging - discouraging opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative always fun - never fun alive - dead active - passive applicable - not applicable  FACTOR I I (10.91?) r  70"l  .618 .593 .580 .569 .557 .503 .477 •395 .368 .349 .343 •335 .302  o + - - v o ^ \ > n T . T O «->1v  fast - slow large - small wide - narrow moving -? s t i l l beautiful - ugly nice - awful alive - dead always fun - never fun easy - d i f f i c u l t encouraging - discouraging straight forward - tricky good - bad active - passive  FACTOR III (6.28?)  .707 .442 .424 .421 .391  rational - miraculous challenging - not challenging understandable - mysterious efficient - inefficient opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative  180  FACTOR I I I (6.28%) .374 .3^9 • 322 .304  wide - narrow theoretical.- intuitive large - small meaningful - meaningless  CONCEPT NO. 5: MY PREVIOUS PHYSICS COURSE FACTOR I (24.76%)  .812 .784 .754 .750 .740 .673 .660 .611 .608* .606 .581 .576 •575  .567 .556 .528 .481 .441 .437 .425 .419 .346 . 314  never dull - always dull always fun - never fun nice - awful rewarding - unrewarding interesting - not interesting moving - s t i l l alive - dead good - bad encouraging - discouraging sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative active - passive clarifies - complicates meaningful - meaningless strong - weak challenging - not challenging beautiful - ugly necessary - unnecessary efficient - inefficient fast - slow valuable - worthless understandable - mysterious large - small  FACTOR I I (8.35%)  .832 .785 .601 .483 .457 .381 .315  straight forward - tricky easy - d i f f i c u l t understandable - mysterious encouraging - discouraging clarifies - complicates ' rational - miraculous efficient - inefficient  FACTOR I I I (13.93%)  .682 .678 .651 .648 .616 .505 .502 .487  Important - unimportant applicable - not applicable needed by society - not needed by society valuable - worthless necessary - unnecessary meaningful - meaningless good - bad challenging - not challenging 182  FACTOR I I I (13-93?)  .476 beneficial for society - not beneficial for society .455 rational - miraculous .411 efficient - inefficient .401 rewarding - unrewarding .394 active - passive •390 opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative .345 interesting - not interesting .342 sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting  FACTOR IV (6.08?)  .615 .582 .485 .456 .364 .343 .295  large - small wide - narrow strong - weak beautiful - ugly should be guided by society - should not be guided by society fast - slow moving - s t i l l  183  CONCEPT NO. 6: MY PREVIOUS PHYSICS INSTRUCTOR FACTOR I (38.37%)  .865 .836 .810 .809 .783 .775 .774 .768 .766" .765 .746 .734 .704 .703 .701 .672 .670 .670 .656 .642 .627 .552 .480 .464 .429 .411 .363 .417 <  interesting - not interesting never dull - always dull good - bad necessary - unnecessary meaningful - meaningless valuable - worthless rewarding - unrewardingsometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting challenging - not challenging always fun - never fun encouraging - discouraging active - passive alive - dead nice - awful needed by society - not needed by society efficient - inefficient moving - s t i l l clarifies - complicates beneficial for society - harmful for society important - unimportant opportunity for initiative - not opportunity for initiative strong - weak applicable - not applicable understandable - mysterious fast - slow beautiful - ugly wide - narrow should be guided by society - should not be guided by society  FACTOR I I  .792 .724 .459 .403 .356  (7*49%)  easy - d i f f i c u l t straight forward-- tricky understandable - mysterious clarifies - complicates encouraging - discouraging  FACTOR I I I  .639 .500 .418 .374 .365 .301  (5.68%)  oriented towards principles - oriented towards facts rational - miraculous wide - narrow applicable - not applicable theoretical - intuitive needed by society - not needed by society 184  FACTOR IV .803 .524. .511 .367  •324  (6.30%)  l a r g e - small strong - weak f a s t - slow wide - narrow a c t i v e - passive  CONCEPT NO. 7: MY EXPECTATIONS TOWARD PHYSICS 110  • FACTOR I (15.66?)  .692 .675 .662 .608 .581 .566 .5^9 .539 .525 .519 .469 .464 .441 .428 .413 .394 .377 .317  encouraging - discouraging easy - d i f f i c u l t straight forward - tricky nice - awful beautiful - ugly always fun -never fun never dull - always dull meaningful - meaningless clarifies - complicates alive - dead strong - weak moving - s t i l l understandable - mysterious fast - slow interesting - not interesting active - passive good - bad wide - narrow  FACTOR I I (11.50?)  .656 .603 .577 .567 •553 .536 .512 .473 .453 .430 .4.12 .355 .329  important - unimportant large - small strong - weak needed by society - not needed by society beneficial for society - harmful for society applicable - not applicable valuable - worthless good - bad necessary - unnecessary wide - narrow efficient - inefficient active - passive rational - miraculous  FACTOR I I I (13.08?)  .725 .640 .585 .563 .556 .555 .545  rewarding - unrewarding interesting - not interesting sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for i n i t i a t i v e moving - s t i l l challenging - not challenging valuable - worthless 186  FACTOR I I I (13.08?) .475 .438 .413 .409 .360 .354 .343 .328 .300  always fun - never fun a p p l i c a b l e - not a p p l i c a b l e efficient - inefficient never d u l l - always d u l l n i c e - awful a l i v e - dead rneaningful - meaningless necessary - unnecessary a c t i v e - passive  APPENDIX D  MOVES IN EVALUATIVE VENTURES  188  MOVES IN EVALUATIVE VENTURES  1. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Moves 1.1 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Value Object and/or Value Term.  Either  the value o b j e c t , or the value term, or both, are named or i d e n t i f i e d .  I n the case of the value object being a  report o r a c t i o n , i t may be given o r performed.  2. D e s c r i p t i o n Moves 2.1 E x p l i c a t i o n o f Value Object 2.11 D e s c r i p t i o n A d e s c r i p t i o n of the a t t r i b u t e s , P r o p e r t i e s , e t c . , o f the value o b j e c t .  When the  value object i s an argument or p r o p o s i t i o n , t h i s may i n c l u d e d i s c u s s i o n o f the premises, assumpt i o n s , or evidence on which the argument i s based. 2.12 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  The value object i s i d e n t i f i e d  as a member o f some more general d e s c r i p t i v e (not normative) c l a s s of t h i n g s . 2 . 1 3 Subsidiary Rating  The value object .is given some  r a t i n g which i s d i f f e r e n t from ( i . e . , i n v o l v e s a d i f f e r e n t value term)the r a t i n g which forms the main p o i n t of the d i s c u s s i o n . 2.14 Instance Comparison  Instances of the value object  are compared i n order t o i l l u s t r a t e or demonstrate some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the value o b j e c t .  189  2.2 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f R e l a t i o n a l P r o p e r t i e s 2.21 Consequences  A d e s c r i p t i o n o f the consequences,  products, a c t i o n s , outcomes, e t c . , o f the value object. 2.22 O r i g i n s  A description o r discussion of the  antecedents, o r i g i n s , causes o r reasons f o r the value o b j e c t . 2.3 Instance D e s c r i p t i o n An i n s t a n c e , o r subclass o f t h e value object i s named o r described.  Characteristics, origins,  consequences, e t c . , may be mentioned.  3. R a t i n g Moves 3.1 R a t i n g o f the Value Object  The value object which forms  the center o f the d i s c u s s i o n i s r a t e d as t o i t s value. 3.2 R a t i n g o f C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  Some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o r r e l a t i o n a l  property (consequence o r o r i g i n ) o f the value object i s r a t e d as t o i t s value. 3.3 Instance E v a l u a t i o n  Some Instance, o r subclass o f the value  object I s r a t e d as t o i t s value.  The Instance may be e i t h e r  real or hypothetical.  4. C r i t e r i a Moves 4.1 E x p l i c a t i o n o f Value Term  A description or discussion o f  the e v a l u a t i v e f o r c e , o r meaning o f the value term. 4.2 C i t i n g C r i t e r i a  A standard o r r u l e , o r some s e t o f a l t e r n a -  t i v e standards o r r u l e s , by which a r a t i n g o f the value 190  object can be made, are s t a t e d o r discussed.  There may, o r  may not be d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f a l t e r n a t i v e standards o r r u l e s . 4.3 S u b s t a n t i a t i o n o f C r i t e r i a  Evidence o r reasons f o r o r  against some r u l e o r standard f o r r a t i n g the value o b j e c t , are given o r discussed. 4.4 Irrelevance o f Value Term  The i r r e l e v a n c e o f the value  term, o r some or a l l o f the c r i t e r i a f o r the value term, i s asserted o r discussed.  Or i t i s asserted that the value term  cannot be a p p l i e d because of the l a c k o f appropriate  evidence.  R e l a t i o n a l Moves 5.1 Explanation o f Discordant C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Evidence o r explanation i s given t o i n d i c a t e why some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the value object which i s apparently discordant w i t h a previous r a t i n g , should be discounted o r ignored. 5.2 C i t i n g an A l t e r n a t i v e Value Object  An o b j e c t , p r a c t i c e ,  reason, e t c . , having a value r a t i n g d i f f e r e n t from the value object under c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s c i t e d o r discussed. This a l t e r n a t i v e value object may be r e a l o r h y p o t h e t i c a l . 5.3 C i t i n g an A u t h o r i t y  The o p i n i o n o r conclusions o f some  a u t h o r i t y such as a p u b l i c f i g u r e o r textbook w r i t e r are c i t e d as evidence f o r o r against a r a t i n g o f the value object. . Any d i s c u s s i o n o f the c r e d i b i l i t y , o r expertness o f such an a u t h o r i t y , i s a l s o included i n t h i s move.  191  5.4 I m p l i c a t i o n  A r a t i n g i s supported on the grounds that i t  does not have the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or e f f e c t s as other objects which have an opposite r a t i n g . 5»5 Analogy  The value object i s l i k e n e d t o another object  customarily b e l i e v e d t o be e i t h e r good or bad, o r widely practiced.  Evidence may o r may not be given t o support  the analogy.  Tangential Evidence 6.1 F a c t s , b e l i e f s , e t c . , which are relevant t o the value o b j e c t , but not d i r e c t l y relevant t o the r a t i n g o f the o b j e c t , are • c i t e d o r discussed.  (Also included i n t h i s category are  moves i n which a value o b j e c t , other than the one which i s • c e n t r a l t o the d i s c u s s i o n , i s r a t e d , apparently because o f misunderstanding, m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , e t c . ) .  192  APPENDIX E  DOCUMENTATION OP THE PROFILE ANALYSIS PROGRAM  193  D e s c r i p t i o n o f the P r o f i l e A n a l y s i s Program  The program begins by performing a p r i n c i p a l axes a n a l y s i s on a c o r r e l a t i o n matrix.  The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s i n the matrix are  i n d i c e s o f the s i m i l a r i t y o f shape o f the subjects' p r o f i l e s o f scores. The i n i t i a l communality estimates placed i n the diagonal o f the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix are the l a r g e s t c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s i n the correspondi n g matrix columns.  P r i n c i p a l axes are extracted and the number o f  p r i n c i p a l axes r o t a t e d t o the Varimax c r i t e r i o n i s equal t o that i n t e g e r nearest t o the smaller o f the two numbers N and M: N = (NV)** X 1.5 CUT M = the number o f eigenvalues where NV = the number of subjects and CUT = a parameter s e t by the user whose values can range between 0.0 and 2.0. Personal correspondence w i t h Wilson H. Guertin determined t h a t the b a s i s f o r N was "purely e m p i r i c a l " and seemed t o define an appropriate number o f f a c t o r s i n "most" problems. The varimax f a c t o r s obtained i d e n t i f y c l u s t e r s o f p r o f i l e s s i m i l a r on the b a s i s o f shape. separately.  Each o f these shape f a c t o r s i s now  considered  The p r o f i l e s whose f a c t o r l o a d i n g exceeds the value CUT X .5  on the f a c t o r are i d e n t i f i e d , and a " d - a n a l y s i s " o f t h i s "shape f a m i l y o f p r o f i l e s " i s performed.  The s i m i l a r i t y matrix S based on the d - s t a t i s t i c  i s c a l c u l a t e d f o r these p r o f i l e s as o u t l i n e d i n Chapter I I , the p r i n c i p a l axes and associated eigenvalues  of the S matrix are determined, and these  axes are r o t a t e d t o the varimax c r i t e r i o n . 194  (The r u l e s f o r s e l e c t i n g the  number o f p r i n c i p a l axes.to r o t a t e are the same as i n the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x ) .  The varimax f a c t o r s separate the group o f  p r o f i l e s of s i m i l a r shape i n t o subgroups on the b a s i s o f l e v e l and d i s persion.  The modal p a t t e r n f o r each o f these d - a n a l y s i s varimax f a c t o r s  i s c a l c u l a t e d from a weighted average of the scores on p r o f i l e s l o a d i n g higher than CUT X .5 on the f a c t o r .  These modal patterns are p r i n t e d by  the program, as are the i n t e r p r o f i l e d values f o r the p r o f i l e s whose scores are used t o define the modal p a t t e r n .  I n a d d i t i o n , the d value  between t h i s modal p a t t e r n and each subject's p r o f i l e i n the sample are printed. A f t e r a l l shape f a c t o r s are independently analyzed by applying the•d-analyses  procedure o u t l i n e d above t o p r o f i l e s w i t h loadings ex-  ceeding CUT X ,5j the d-analysis procedure i s repeated on each shape f a c t o r again f o r p r o f i l e s whose loadings are below -CUT X .5.  The  p r o f i l e s w i t h h i g h l y negative loadings on a f a c t o r would i d e a l l y be m i r r o r images o f those w i t h h i g h l y p o s i t i v e loadings on the same f a c t o r . I f there are n shape f a c t o r s t h e r e f o r e , 2n d-analyses are performed. Prom each d-analysis i s d e r i v e d a number o f modal p a t t e r n s , o r "types" o f subjects equal t o t h e number o f varimax f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d .  These  modal patterns are a l l p r i n t e d i n summary f a s h i o n by the program, as are the raw score weights used i n the c a l c u l a t i o n o f each modal p a t t e r n and the d values between each subject's p r o f i l e and each modal p a t t e r n .  195  CONTROL CARDS FOR THE PROFILE ANALYSIS PROGRAM  Order o f C o n t r o l Cards  1)  RFS card  2)  $SIG idno  3)  Password $RUN GUERTIN.0 5=*SOURCE*+DATA GUERTIN.0 i s the object deck. L o g i c a l u n i t 5 expects to  read:  a) the t i t l e card b) .parameter card c) ( r o t a t i o n card - o p t i o n a l ) d) format card e) data cards f ) $END -logical unit 6 The output d e f a u l t s t o t h i s u n i t . I t d e f a u l t s to *SINK* o r a f i l e could be s p e c i f i e d . - l o g i c a l unit 3 This u n i t stores the data. I f a s c r a t c h f i l e i s s p e c i f i e d (3=-a) then t h i s f i l e i s l o s t a f t e r you sign o f f . -logical unit 9 An o p t i o n i s Included i n t h i s program t o allow the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix t o be p r i n t e d on l o g i c a l u n i t 9. 5)  $SIG  196  D e s c r i p t i o n o f C o n t r o l Cards 1)  T i t l e card A maximum o f 80 characters i s allowed.  2)  Parameter card (* i n d i c a t e s the d e f a u l t i f nothing i s punched on the parameter card.)  FORMAT (1015,2P10.-7) Variable Name  Column  Description  N  1-5  Number o f subjects Maximum o f 200  6-10  Number o f v a r i a b l e s Maximum o f 50 Both N and L must be GT 0 o r the program w i l l terminate.  NAME  15  * no i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number i s read i n f o r each subject ? 0 - an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number i s read i n f o r each subject and p r i n t e d i n the summary  IDIAG  20  * maximum absolute row value i s used f o r the communality estimate = 1 one's along the diagonal (not sure the other formulae are mathematically c o r r e c t w i t h ones along the diagonal)  ICORR  25  Determines whether o r not a c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x i s t o be p r i n t e d and where i t i s t o be p r i n t e d . * p r i n t e d on l o g i c a l u n i t 6 =1 p r i n t e d on l o g i c a l u n i t 6 and saved on l o g i c a l u n i t 9 =2 saved on l o g i c a l u n i t 9 =3 not w r i t t e n o r saved  197  Determines the number o f f a c t o r s t o be r o t a t e d . * uses t h e formula NRO = MINO(NRO,NZ) GT 0 I t uses t h i s value f o r t h e f i r s t number o f f a c t o r s t o be r o t a t e d and expects t o read a card i n 2013 format containing the number o f f a c t o r s t o be r o t a t e d f o r each f a m i l y shape. LT 0 This value i s used f o r . t h e number o f f a c t o r s t o be r o t a t e d from the i n i t i a l p r i n c i p a l a x i s f a c t o r matrix and then t h e formula NRO = MTNO (NR0,NZ) i s used f o r the number o f f a c t o r s t o be r o t a t e d f o r each f a m i l y shape. * scores are r e t a i n e d as read i n 7*0 scores are scaled t o standard scores as soon as they are read i n Number o f format cards t o be read i n Maximum o f 5 * defaults t o 1 * cards are not punched. But "weighted means.on the v a r i a b l e f o r the p a t t e r n s " i s always punched on u n i t 7 7*0 cards are punched * flows through the whole program =1 c a l c u l a t e s and p r i n t s out the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix and then stops =2 c a l c u l a t e s and p r i n t s out the correlation matrix, p r i n c i p a l axis factor matrix and eigenvalues and then stops Cut-off l i n e between 1. and 2. * d e f a u l t s t o 1. C r i t e r i o n value f o r d i a g o n a l i z a t i o n o f the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix. * d e f a u l t s t o 0.1 Trie smaller the value o f ACC the more c a l c u l a t i o n s t h e program has t o do. I t determines the stringency f o r d i a g o n a l i z a t i o n o f the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix.  198  3)  Optional r o t a t i o n c r i t e r i a card I f TROT GT 0 then the program expects t o read i n a card c o n t a i n i n g the number o f f a c t o r s t o be used i n each r o t a t i o n f o r each shape f a m i l y p a t t e r n . One f o r p o s i t i v e f a c t o r s and one f o r the number o f negative f a c t o r s f o r each f a m i l y shape. FORMAT (2013)  4)  Format card May take up t o 5 cards. The data must be read i n one s u b j e c t / format card. The program, expects t o read the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number i n f i r s t i f i t i s t o be read i n a t a l l .  5)  $END  199  T A B L E  7  PRINTED OUTPUT OF THE PROFILE ANALYSIS COMPUTER PROGRAM  A. C o r r e l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1.  Mean scores o f t h e v a r i a b l e s on the p r o f i l e s .  2.  Standard deviations o f the v a r i a b l e s on the p r o f i l e s .  3.  I n t e r p r o f i l e c o r r e l a t i o n matrix.  4.  P r i n c i p a l a x i s f a c t o r s o f the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix.  5.  Eigenvalues o f the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix.  6.  Varimax f a c t o r s o f the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix.  7.  Sum o f the squared loadings o f the p r o f i l e s w i t h i n each varimax f a c t o r .  8.  Sum c f the squared loadings f o r each p r o f i l e over the varimax f a c t o r s .  9.  T o t a l sum o f the squared.loadings and the percentage o f t o t a l variance accounted f o r by the varimax f a c t o r s .  B. Distance A n a l y s i s (repeated f o r each shape family) 1.  P r o f i l e numbers o f the members o f the shape family.  2.  S i m i l a r i t y matrix o f the shape f a m i l y .  3.  P r i n c i p a l a x i s f a c t o r s o f the s i m i l a r i t y  H. Eigenvalues o f the s i m i l a r i t y 5. 6.  matrix.  matrix.  Varimax f a c t o r s o f the s i m i l a r i t y matrix. Sum o f the squared loadings o f the p r o f i l e s w i t h i n each variance f a c t o r .  200  TABLE 7 - Continued  7.  Sum o f the squared loadings f o r each p r o f i l e over t h e varimax f a c t o r s .  8.  P r o f i l e numbers o f p r o f i l e s l o a d i n g h i g h l y (greater than on varimax f a c t o r 1.  9.  CUT -5— )  CUT I n t e r p r o f i l e distances f o r p r o f i l e s l o a d i n g h i g h l y (greater than —p— ) on varimax f a c t o r 1.  10.  Distances between each p r o f i l e and t h e modal p a t t e r n representing varimax f a c t o r 1.  11.  V a r i a b l e weights f o r modal p a t t e r n 1.  12.  Weighted mean scores f o r modal p a t t e r n 1. (8-12 are repeated f o r each varimax f a c t o r o f the s i m i l a r i t y m a t r i x )  C. Summary Data 1.  Distance between each p r o f i l e and each modal p a t t e r n .  2.  Weighted mean raw scores f o r each modal p a t t e r n .  3.  V a r i a b l e weights f o r each modal p a t t e r n .  4.  A second-order d-analysis o f t h e modal p a t t e r n s .  201  $LIST  1 2  GUERTIN C ED777-PR0FILE ANALYSIS PACKAGE C PROFILE ANALYSIS P A C K A G E BY G U E R T I N - C O L L E G E 100  4  C  PROGRAM  5  C  MA I N - T R R - I D E N T - S  6  C OUTFL-CNTRL-DSQ-TRDSQ-MODES-MATCH-OUTMCH-WPQUT-OUTWP-OUTPCH  12  C C C C C .  C  14  C  15  C  16  C  17  C  19  C  21  C  20  ARE  21  C  TABLE  OF  MAIN  -DUMMY  TRR  -TRANSPOSED  - (CALLS  IDENT  C  MULTR  25  C  JACOBI  26  C  ROTATE  27 28  C C  29  C  30  C  31  C  32  C  FARF  -FACTOR  CNTRL  -CONTROL  DSQ  -(CALLS  FARF  -SAME  C  ROTATE  36  C  39  C  C C  MODES  -(CALLS  MATCH  -GETS  C C  42 43  C C  44  C  OUTWP  45  C  OUTPCH  C  C  51  53  54 55  FARF  DSQ)  WITH  C  (ALSO  KENT  ANALYSIS  MATCH)  PATTERNS  (ALSO  (CALLS  CALLS  CNTRL)  WPOUT  AT  ENO)  = 1 ) WITH  KENT  CALLS  (RETURNS  WPOUT  -WRITES  MAIN  MAIN  PRGM  USED  CALL  FOR  TRR  AND  PUNCHES  =  1  (CALLS  MODES)  TO  CNTRL  FOR  NEXT  FAMILY)  MODES)  CALLING  TRANSPOSED  END  SUBROUTINE  SUMMARY  (RETURNS  TO  DSQ  FOR  SECONDORDER)  RETURN  C  ROTATE  OUTMCH  C  49  (CALLS  AND  OUTFL  40  C  FARF)  JACOBI  41  47  (CALLS  ANALYSIS  FACTOR  MULTR  C  R  TRR)  TRDSQ  C  34  52  MAIM  OUTSS  24  50  INCLUDING  SSCNV  C  MTTOUT  48  ALL  CONTENTS  C  46  IN  ALPHABETIZED SUBROUTINES I DENT-JACOBI-CNTRL-DSQ-FARF-MATCH-MUDE S-MTTOUT-MULTR-OUTFL-OUTPCH-OUTMCH-CJUTSS-OUTWP--ROTATE-SSCNV-TRDSG-TRR-WPOUT  C  37 38  FLA.  SC N V - O U T S S - F A R F - M U L T R - M T T O U T - J A C O B I - R O T A T E  PROGRAMS  23  35  OF  LIST  22  33  MAXIMUMS  C  13  18  THERE  VARIABLE  E D U C A T I O N - U N IV  C  7 8 9 10 11  SUBJECT-150  OF  3  TRR  202  R  (TRR)  3D  U  57 58 59 60  C C  IKMINirU^CU K  61 62 63 . 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  74  UttLLO  I N T E G E R#2 0DIMENSION  t AKf  Willi  KLSTRS R(2C0,200),  LKLSTRS(200,200),  ;»U VAIO  AN U  FMEAN(200),  £ U U iUOJCU I i  SIGI200),  SCORES(200,50),  FMT(100),DUMM(10G)  1  0 C O M M O N R, FMEAN, SIG, SCORES, K L S T R S , N, L, KEY, N7, CUT, 1, A V D S Q , NOCf MVAL, II, MM2, M T O T , NPCH.UUMM JVAL, KL1 I N S E R T T H E O P T I O N S T O R E A D IN V A R I A B L E N A M E S AND TO H A V E O N E S IN T H E D I A G O N A L C F T H E C O R R E L A T I O N MATRIX REAL*8 VARNM(200) THE V A R I A B L E N A M E S H O U L D BE R E A D I N IN A F G R M A T AND MAY H A V E A M A X I M U M OF 8 C H A R A C T E R S COMMON / I N P U T / NAME,ID I AG,ICORR,IROT,ACC,JROT(20) EQUIVALENCE (FMT, SIG) WRITE (6,6666)  6666  OFORMAT  C C C C C  75  (1H1,//T35,  11B R A R Y '  /  2TIN',///  T48,  'UNIVERSITY  'PROFILE  T45,•VERSION  ANALYSIS  FLORIDA  EDUCATIONAL  PACKAGE•/  1/1/70'//T46,•SEE-ED  T5L,  PSYCH  EVAL-  5  'WILSON"'  MEAS,1966,  76 77  MTOT JVAL  79 80  5  READ ( 5 , 5) N, L , N A M E , 1 0 I A G , I C O R R , I R O T , K E Y , N F M T , N P C H , C U T , A C C FORMAT(915,2F 10.7)  81  C  N =  82  C  84  C  78  83 85  CALL  C  C  86  C  88  C  87  89  90  91  108  TO  THE  ICORR  C  =  1  C  C  C C C C C C C C C  55  991  109  0  WAY 1  IROT  OF  VARIABLES  EACH THE  CARDS  ONES  IF  =  0  WRITE  0  NAMES  IF  0  WANT  WANT  3  LU6  NRO  THE  IN  OUT  AND  =  READ  EACH  ON  LOGICAL  FORMULA  NUMBER  ARRAY  ON  USED OF  JROT  LU  A  IN  NAME  ABSOLUTE  DIAGONAL  SAVED  IS  INPUT  ARE  FOR  IS  ASSIGNED  CORRELATION  WRITTEN  IS  IROT  MAXIMUM  MAXIMUM  PRINTED  NOT  IS  WERE  LENGTH  1 ON  MAXIMUM  SUBJECT  -  =  OF  200 50  CONSECUTIVE  FOR IS  ROW  FOR  FACTORS  EIGHT  SUBJECT  9  FOR  ON  6  LU  ACCt  RDINC  CHARACTERS  VALUE  THE  CORRELATION  MATRIX  UNIT  EACH  NUMBER  DI AGON/  MATRIX  9 NUMBER  CONTAINS  TO  BE  THE  OF  FACTORS  ROTATED  NUMBER  TO  BE  R01 A  OF  FACTORS  T  E  L  TO B  READ(5,55) JROT FORMAT(2013) CONTINUE  (CUT.EO.0.0)  111  WRITE  112  IF  3  (3)  (NFMT  NFMT  =  WRITE  20*NFMT  (6,  CUT  =  1.0  KEY .EQ.  IF(N.GT.O) 6  SUBJECTS  ROTATED AFTER THE F I R S T ROTATION <0 I R O T = NUMBER OF F A C T O R S T O B E R O T A T E D KEY = 0 D O E S NOT C O N V E R T S C O R E S TO S T A N D A R D S C O R E S ( SCALED N F M T = NUMBER OF F O R M A T C A R D S - HAS MAXIMUM OF T E N DATA.) RESET TO 1 IF R E A D IN AS 0 N P C H = 0 NO P U N C H E D O U T P U T O F S U M M A R Y R E S U L T S WANTED C U T = CUT O F F L I N E - IF ZERO IT IS CHANGED TO 1.0 ACC DETERMINES STRINGENCY FOR D I A G O N A L I Z I N G THE CORRELATION IF 0 . 0 C H A N G E D TO l . E - 1 MATRIX IF(IROT.LE.O) GO T O 9 9 1  IF  114  OF  VARIABLE  >0  REWIND  113  P151*:  MAXIMUM  2  110  115  =  C  C  106 107  = NUMBER  NAME  C  94  96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105  NUMBER  ID I A G  C  95  L  '.  I DENT(1 )  C  92  93  = 0 = 0  OF  GO 8  )  0  )  NFMT  = 1 x  TO  A  " Y.2  7  r  203  '  0  b  U  E  lib 117 118 119  b 7 9  120  hUKMAI  .  11  121 122 123 124 125  10 12  16  130 131 132  99 98  135 136 137  888  138 139  777  141 142 143  C  140  18  19  144 145 146  20  C  147  25  150 151 152  102  153 154 155  103 26  156 157 158 159  C  =  0)  IF(ACC.EQ.O.O) ACC=1.E-1 READ ( 5 , 1 6 ) (FMT(I), I = FORMAT (20A4)  1,NFMT  / / 10X21HNUMBER , I3//17H0PRECIS  OF SUB~ ION CUT IS,  )  IF(NAME . N E . 0 ) GO T O 9 9 READ{5 » F M T ) ( ( S C O R E S ( I , J ) , J = l,LJ I = ltN) GO T O 9 8 READ(5,FMT) (VARNM(I),(SCORES(I,J),J=I,L),1=1,N) DO DO  888 888  I J  • R( I , J ) DO 7 7 7  = =  1,N 1, N  = 0.0 I = l,N  FMEANtI) = 0.0 S I G ( I) = 0.0 CALL SSCNV AL = L BIASED ESTIMATE DO 2 0 I = 1,N  DO -19 J  FMEAN(I)  =  =  OF  MEANS  1, L . FMEAN(I)  +  OF  I  =  1,N  OF  DO 2 5 J = 1 , L SIGtl) = SIG(I) + SCORES(I,J) TESTS = SIG(I) /AL - FMEAN(I) I F(TESTS.GT.0.) GO T O 1 0 3  SIG(I) = 0.0 GO T O 2 6 SIG(I)=SQRT(TESTS) CONTINUE BIASED ESTIMATE OF 50 I = l.N 50 M = I,N DO 5 0 J = 1 , L R(I,M) = R(I,M)  ARE  CALCULATED  SCORES(I.J)  FMEAN ( I ) = F M E A N t I ) / AL BIASED STANDARD DEVIATIONS 26  SUBJECTS  SUBJECTS  ARE  CALCULATED  *SCORES(I,J) * FMEAN(I)  CORRELATION  COEFFICIENTS  BETWEEN  SUBJECTS  DO DO  160 161  50  165 166 167  202  168  60  209  169  R( I , M )  71  =  *  SCORES(M J) T  0.0  (R(I,M)  CONTINUE 70  I  =  /  AL  -FMEAN(I)*FMEAN(M) ) /(SIG(I)*SIG(M ) )  1,N  7 0 -M = I N R(M»I) = R(I»M) I F ( I D I A G . N E . O ) GO WRITE (6,71)  DO  70  SCORES(I.J)  f  GO T O 6 0 R ( I , M ) •= DO  .  +  60 I = l N DO 6 0 M=I,N DIV = S I G ( I ) * SIG(M) IFJDIV.NE.O.) GO T O 2 0 9  DO  162 163 164  175  VARIABLES  U1  GO T O 2 0 0 0 WRITE (6, 12) N» L, CUT OFORMAT ( 2 5 H 0 P R 0 B L E M P A R A M E T E R S A R E — 1 1 3 / / 9 X t 2 2 H N U M B E R OF V A R I A B L E S = 2 F5.2)  DO  148 149  174  =  f  133 134  172 173  bUbJttlb  r  126 127 128 129  170 171  l ^JH.dN'JMBfcK. Uh  GO T O 2 0 0 0 IF(L.GT.O) GO T O 1 0 WRITE (6, 11) FORMAT (24H2NUMBER OF  f  TO  9999  FORMAT ( 1 H 1 . 2 9 H C 0 R R E L A T I 0 N S 1 T I M A T E S IN D I A G O N A L S ) 8  204  BETWEEN  SUBJECTS»•  W I T H COMMUNAL I T Y ES "  JECTS  176 177  9999  178  9997  179  180  9998  182  2000  18 4  C C  181  183 185  186 C  190  5  2  192 193  GO  TO  FARF  STOP  CALLED  I DENT  ALPHA  FROM  FORMAT(20A4)  FORMAT  DO  1  TRR  TO  WRITE  OUT  ALONG H  E  D  I  A  G  TITLE  (1H0,//,20A4)  1=1,NCOS  (5,2,END=9998)(ALPHA(J),J=l,20)  9998 9999  WRITE(6,9999) FORMAT(1H0,//,T15,'END  RETURN OF  ALL  JOBS*)  STOP  END  C C  C C  SUBROUTINE SSCNV I N T E G E R*2 KLSTRS C A L L E D FROM TRR W R I T E S OUT M E A N S AND S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N S C F T H E VARIABLES ODIMENSION R ( 2 C 0 , 2 0 0 ) , F M E A N ( 2 0 0 ) , S I G ( 2 0 0 ) , D A T A ( 200,50), 1200),OMNf50) ,DSD(50) KLSTRS(200  208  1MVAL,11,MM2,MTOT,NPCH,DSD,DMN  209  DATA  210  90  211  C  212  AN DSD DO  213  225 226 227 228 229 230  ONES  (NCOS)  (20)  • COMMON  216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224  WITH  (0)  1  207  214 215  SUBJECTS  END  READ  198  200 201 202 203 204 205 206  CALL  BETWEEN  T  W R I T E ! 6 , 5 IALPHA  197 199  «CORR£LATIONS  1  194 195 196  FORMAT('1  10NAL')  DIMENSION  188  191  WRITE(6,9997)  SUBROUTINE  187  189  GO T O 9998  SUM  100 110 120 C  140 150 160 C  RP =  =  / ' ) « /  J  0.0  =  MEANS  OF  1,L  DMN(J) = SUM / AN WRITE (6,120) FORMAT (1H0, 10X, 5HMEANS) WRITE (6,130) (J, RP,DMN(J), J = 1,L) DSD CONTAINS STANDARD D E V I A T I O N S OF VARIABLES DO 1 5 0 J = I,L SSQ = 0 . 0 DO 1 4 0 I = L,N SSQ = SSQ + O A T A ( I , J ) * DATA(I,J) D M S Q = S S Q / AN DSD(J) = SORT (DMSQ - D M N ( J ) * D M N ( J ) ) WRITE (6, 160) FORMAT ( 2 OH O S T A N D A R D DEVIATIONS) WRITE ( 6 , 1 3 1 ) (J, RP,DSD(J), J = i,L) IF KEY 0 THEN THE SCORES ARE SCALED IF  232 233 234 235  RETURN DO 1 8 0 J = 1,L 00 180 I = 1,N DATA(I,J) = (DATA(I,J)  180  VARIABLES  DO 1 0 0 I = 1,N SUM = SUM + D A T A ( I , J )  231 62  NOC,  N  CONTAINS  110  ;  R , F M E A N , S I G , D A T A , K L S T R S , N , L , K E Y , N 7 , C U T , J V A L , K L I , A VDSQ,  (KEY.NE.O)  GO  TO  62  205  -  DMN(J)  )  /  DSD(J)  2 3 6  2 1 1  WRITE  237  2 1 2  FORMAT  238  CALL  ( 6 ,2 1 2 ) ( 1 H 1 , 10X»  OUTSS  17HZ-ST ANOARD  (DATA,N  A B L E S )  2 3 9  1 0 0 0  240  1 3 0  FORMAT  2 4 1  1 3 1  F O R M A T ( 1 0 I 3 X , 1 2 , A l , F 6 . 2 )  2 4 2 243 2 4 4  RETURN ( 1 0 ( 2 X ,  I 2 t A l  F 7 . 2 )  t  END  2 4 5  SUBROUTINE DIMENSION  OUTSS  (R,M,K)  R ( 2 0 0 , 5 0 )  2 4 7  C  C A L L E D  FROM  248  C  WRITES  OUT  2 4 9  9 1 0  FORMAT  ( 1 H O , 9 X , 1 0 ( 1 1 0 , I X  250  9 3 0  F O R M A T ( 2 H  251  C  R  2 5 2  =  NAME  KM ANY  2 5 3  DO  2 5 4  Li =  2 5 5  L  2 5 6  I F 9 9 7  2 5 8 9 9 5  2 6 0  9 9 9  2 6 1 2 6 3  =  SSCNV  I F  0 SCORES ) )  , I5 , I X » F 1 3 . 4 , 9 ( F 1 0 . 4 , I X > ) M A T R I X ,  ( ( ( K - D / 1 0 L 2  =  -  9  L 2  KEY  S T A N D A R D I Z E D  OF  =  9 9 5  M +  =  NO.  1)  10,KMANY,  *  WRITE  ( 6 , 9 1 0 )  9 9 5  WRITE  I  =  L  =  COLUMNS  I , ( R ( I , J ) , J = L 1 , L )  END  C C  O D I M E N S I O N  267  1 K L S T R S ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , A ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) ,  268  OCOMMON  269  1 J V A L ,  270  F A R F  (KENT)  K L S T R S S U M X X ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) ,  SUMXX,  SUMDV,  K L I ,AVDSQ,  C,  NOC,  S U M D V ( ? 0 0 ) , P ( 2 0 0  SCORES, MVAL,  t  C ( 2 C C ) ,  2 0 0 ) ,  K L S T R S ,  I I , MM2,  COMMON  / I N P U T /  NAME,IDI  AG,ICORR,I  C  2 7 3  J V  2 7 4  RCUT  =  J V A L  2 7 5  I F  (KENT  2 7 6  NV  = K L I  =  1.0  /  CUT  .EQ.  0 )  2 7 7  ANV  2 7 8  GO  TO  4 0 0 5  NV  =  ANV  =  NOS  4 0 0 6  NRO  =  SQRT(ANV)  2 8 0  GO  4 0 0 6 NOS  =  2 8 3  I F ( ( N R O - N V ) . L T . O ) 4 0 4 9  NRO  4 0 5 0  DO  1 0 2 0 I  =  DO  1 0 2 0  J=1,NV  A ( I , J ) C A L L  =  -  (A,  NV, GO  1 8 0  291  2 3 0  P ( 1 , 1 ) = S U M D V ( I )  292  9 9 9 8  IF ( K E N T . G T . 0 ) C A L L GO  TO  TO  /  TO  GO  MTTOUT  GO  TO  9 9 9 8  4 2 3 1  TO  (P,NV,NV)  2 4 1  206  2 4 1  5.C  4 0 5 0  SUMDV)  1=1,NV  I F ( I C 0 R R . E 0 . 3 ) 4 2 3 0  GO  1,NV  2 9 0  2 9 3  RCUT  S U M X X ( I , J )  MULTR  2 3 0  *  1  I F ( I D I A G . N E - O ) DO  1.5  SORT(ANV)  285  2 8 9  NV  *  2 8 4  1 0 2 0  =  CUT  *  CNFLAM  288  4 0 0 5  = K L I  2 8 2  286  TO  ROT,ACC  S C O R E S ( 2 0 0 , 5 0 )  E I G ( 2 0 0 ) NOS,  NTOT  E Q U I V A L E N C E ( S U M X X , P )  271  2 9 5  OF  RETURN  2 6 6  2 9 4  NO.  1,M  ( 6 , 9 3 0 )  INTEGER*2  287  =  K  S U B R O U T I N E  2 8 1  K  ( I , I = L 1 , L )  265  2 7 9  ROWS?'  10  2 6 4  2 7 2  OF  1 0 )  L 2 (L2.EQ.KMANY)  DO  2 5 9  2 6 2  )  )  C C  2 4 6  2 5 7  S C O R E S / 8 H O S U B J E C T , 4 0 X , 9 H V A R I-  »L)  N 5 ,  N6,  NRO,  CUT.  297 298 299  241  300  A,NV,1,NR0T)  DO 2 4 3 1 = 1 , N V SUMDV(I ) = P ( I , I )  301 302 303 304  CALL J A C O B K LLL =0 NZ = 0  EIG(I)  =  SUMDV(I)  1724  DO 1 7 2 4 J = l , N V P(I,J)=A(I,J)  306 307  2421  IF(SUMDV(I).GE.O.) NZ=NZ+1  308  2422  309 310 311 312  242 243  305  313 314 315 316  224 500 1774  321 322  323  250  330 331 332 333 334  260  251  252 253 254  256  922 4009 2001 2005  344  267  345  918  348 349  919  352 353  320 325  354 355  911 10  350 351  256  I3=1,NZ  IF(A(11,13).GE.O.) IMI'lllMUO  -  W i X N U S  +  GO TO 2 5 2 1  CONTINUE IF((NV-2*NMINUS).GE.O) DO 2 5 4 1 2 = 1 , N V  A(12,13) CONTINUE WRITE  =  GO T O 2 5 6  -A(I2,I3)  (6,922)  FORMAT(1H0// IF(KENT.LE.O)  • PRINCIPAL AXIS GO T O 2 0 0 1  FACTOR  MATRIX'  CALL OUTFL(A,NV,NZ,KLSTRS,JV) GO T O 2 0 0 5 C A L L MTTOUT (A,NV,NZ) DO 2 6 7 1 = 1 , N Z  DO  267 K=1,NV  P(I,J)=P(I,J)+A(K,I)*A(K,J) N Z P = NZ NZ=NV-LLL  346  347  260 1=1,NZ  SUMDV( I ) = S Q R T ( S U M D V ( I ) ) DO 2 6 0 J = 1 , N V A(J, I)=SUMDV(I)*P(J,I)  DO 2 6 7 J = 1 , N Z P(I,J)=0.0  342 343  GO T O 10  SUM=SUM+SUMDV(I) A ( I , 1 ) = SUM / F N V  DO  337 338  340 341  .  IF(NZ.LE.O) CONTINUE SUM=.0  GO T O 2 4 3  NMINUS = 0 DO 2 5 2 1 1 = 1 , N V  33 5 336  339  CONTINUE NZ=NV-NZ  DO  324 325 326 327 328 329  TO 242  IF( (SUMDVtI)-CNFLAM).GE.O. ) LLL=LLL+1  FNV=NV DO 2 5 0 1 = 1 , N Z  317  318 319 320  GO  GO T O 2 4 2 2  WRITE  (6,918)  FORMAT(12H EIGENVALUES) WRITE (6,919) (EIG(I) , I FORMAT ( 11X, 2F10.2, NRO=MINO(NRO,NZ) IF((NRO*(1-NRO) ) .LT.O) WRITE (6,911) CALL  ROTATE  FORMAT  (A,KENT)  (1H0 )  CONTINUE  207  =  1,NZP)  8(1X, 1F10.2) GO T O 3 2 5  )  356  I F ( K E N T c G T . O )  357  4111  C A L L  CNTRL  358  4112  C A L L  MODES  359  END  362  C 3  C  364  S U B R O U T I N E  365  D I M E N S I O N  366  C  367  500  COMPUTES DO  AS  I  A(  I , I )  =  369  DO  210  J  IF(  370  M U L T R ( A , N , U ) U 1 2 0 0 ) , A ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 )  H2  220  368  H I G H E S T  =  ROW  VALUE  1,N 0.0  =  1,N  (A( I tI ) - A B S ( A ( I , J ) ) ) . G E . 0 . )  371  205  A(  372  210  C O N T I N U E  373  220  U(  1,1)  =  I )  ABS  =  ( A ( I , J )  375 C  377  C S U B R O U T I N E  379  D I M E N S I O N  2  383  MTTOUT  (R,M,K)  R ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 )  COMMON  / I N P U T / N A M E , I D I A G , I C O R R  C  C A L L E D  FROM  C  P R I N T S  OUT  C O R R E L A T I O N  M A T R I X  C  P R I N T S  OUT  C O E F F I C I E N T  OF  380 381  F A R F BETWEEN  FACTORS  -  S U B J E C T S  P R I N C I P A L  A X E S  LU=6  384  FORMAT  386  930  F O R M A T ( 2 H  387  C  5  388  R  =  ( 1 H 0 , 9 X , 1 0 ( 1 1 0 , I X  NAME  KMANY  389  =  OF  M A T R I X ,  ( { ( K - U / 1 0  IF(  I C O R R . E Q . 2 ) 9 9 5  391  L I  =  392  L  393  IF  1  394  997  =  995  396  =  -  9  M +  = 1)  NO. *  ( L U , 9 1 0 )  =  NO.  OF  COLUMNS  9 9 5  WRITE  I  =  L  =  K  ( I , I = L 1 , L )  1,M  ( L U , 9 3 0 )  I , ( R ( I , J ) , J  398  IF(  I C O R R . N E . l )  399  LU = 9  400  GO  402  K  L2  I F ( I C O R R . E Q . 1 . A N D . L U . E Q . 9 )  999  ROWS,  10  397  401  OF 10)  LU=9  10,KMANY,  ( L 2.EQ.KMANY)  WRITE DO  395  L 2  L 2  ) )  , I 5 , l X , F 1 3 . 4 , 9 ( F I 0 . 4 , i X ) )  DO  390  TO  GO  TO  =  L 1 , L )  GO  TO  9 9 9  9 9 9  1  ICORR=0 RETURN  403  END  404  C  405  C  406  C  407  C  408  S U B R O U T I N E  409  D I M E N S I O N  410  COMMON .  J A C O B I  ( B , N , I V , N R )  A ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) ,  B ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) ,  L K ( 2 0 0 ) ,  A  C O M M O N / I N P U T / N A M E , I D I A G , I C O R R , T R O T , A C C  412  IF(  ( I V - 1 J . N E . O )  201  DO  202  1=1,N  DO  2 0 3  J = 1 , N  203  B ( I , J ) = 0 . 0  414  FACTOR M A T R I X  910  415  2 1 0  A< I , I )  378  413  TO  END  376  411  GO  )  RETURN  374  38  4 1 1 2  C  361  38  TO  RETURN  360  36  GO  GO  TO  208  2 0 0  Q ( 2 0 0 )  416 417 418 419  202 200  420 421 422  B(I,I)=1.0 NR=0 Q(1)=0.0 W=0.0 H=.5*A(1,1)*A(1,1) DO 1 I = 2 , N  H=H+.5*A(I,I)*A(I,I)  423 42 4 425  Q(I)=0 .0 11=1-1 DO 2 J = 1 , I 1  428  H=H+Z*Z IF(Z-Q(I))2,2,3  426 427  Z=ABS(AC  429  3  430  431  432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439  Q(I)=Z LK(I)=J  2  CONTINUE  4  IF((Q{ I.)-W).LE.O. ) W=Q(I)  1  CONTINUE  30  H=ACC*SQRT(2.0*H)/FLOAT(N) II=LK(III)  •  441  111 = I  W=X-Z  T = . 5 * ( W +SQRTt W * W + 4 . 0 * Y * Y ) ) / Y W=SQRT{1.0+T*T) S=T/W  444  44 5 446  C=1*0/W  447 448 449  CC=C*C  450  Q1=0.0  ss=s*s  SC=S*C*2.0  451  Q2=0.0 W=0.0 NR=NR+1  452 453 454  DO  45 5 10  465 466 467  14 15  16  470  11  471  472 473 474 475  I F ( I-II )10,1.1,12 U=A(II, I ) V=A(JJ,I)  IF((ABS(E)-QlJ.LE.O.) Q1=ABS(E) 11 = 1  GO T O 1 5  IF((ABS(F)-02).LE.0.) Q2=ABS(F)  GO T O 9  F=V*S-U*C A(JJ,I)=F  12 = 1  468  469  27 1=1,N  E=U*S+V*C A( I I , I )=E  459  462 463 464  1  Z=A(JJ,JJ)  442 443  460 461  GO T O  JJ=111 X=A(II,II) Y = A { J J , II )  440  456 45 7 458  I,J))  12 17  GO  TO 9  A( I I , I )=SS*X +SC*Y+CC*Z Q(I)=Q1 L K ( I ) = U  GO  TO 9  I F ( I-JJ  )17,18,19  U=AC I t 1 1 ) V=A(JJ,I)  209  476 477 478 479 480 481 482 48 3 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 49 5 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 52 3 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 . 532 533 534 535  21 18  19  13 24 23 9 25 40 33  27 31 56  52 51 53  54 50 55  E=S*U+C*V A(l,II)=E I F ( ( A B S ( E ) - O t l ) J . L E . O . ) GO TO 15 LK ( I) = 11 Q( I ) =ABS(E) GO TO 15 A(JJ,I)=CC*X-SC*Y+SS*Z A ( I , I I ) = 0.0 Q(I)=Q2 LK(I)=I2 GO TO 9 U=A{1,11) V=A(I,JJ) E=U*S+V*C F=V*S-U*C At I , 11 )=E A(I,JJ)=F G=AMAX1(ABS(E),ABS(F)) I F ( ( G - Q ( I ) ) . L E . O . ) GO TO 9 Q( I )=G I F ( ( A B S ( E ) - A B S I F ) ) . L T . O . ) GO TO 23 LK(I)= I I GO TO 9 LK( I ) = J J I F ( ( Q ( I )-W).LT.O.) GO TO 40 W=Q(I) II 1 = 1 IF( IV.LE.O) GO TO 27 U=B( I, 11 ) V=B( I , J J ) B(I,II)=U*S+V*C B(I,JJ)=V*S-U*C CONTINUE IF((W-H).GT.O.) GO TO 30 IF( IV.LE.O) GO TO 55 DO 50 I = L',N U=-1.E20 DO 51 J=I,N I F ( ( A ( J , J ) - U ) . L E . O . ) GO TO 51 U=A(J,J) K=J CONTINUE I F ( ( K - I ) . E Q . O ) GO TO 50 A(K,K)=A( I, I ) A ( I , I)=U DO 54 J=1,N U=8(J,K) B(J,K)=8(J, I ) B(J,I)=U CONTINUE RETURN END SUBROUTINE ROTATE(A,KENT) INTEGER*2 KLSTRS ODIMENS ION SUMXXt 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , H ( 2 0 0 ) , T V ( 2 0 0 ) , S C 0 R E S ( 2 0 0 , 5 0 ) , 2KLSTRS(200,2 0 0 ) , A ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , P ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , BBC(200) OCOMMON SUMXX,H,TV,SCORES,KLSTRS,NOS,N5, N6,NR0,CUT,JVAL, 1KLI,AVDSQ,NOC,MVAL,I I,MM2,MTOT EQUIVALENCE(SUMXX,P),(H,BBC) COMMON /INPUT/NAME,ID I AG,ICORR,I ROT,ACC,JROT(20)  210  S»36  538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545  801 802 805  546  G O TO 8 0 2  N=KLI JV=JVAL L=NRO  IF( IROT.EQ.O) GO T O 9 9 IF(KENT.EQ.O.AND.IROT.NE.O)  L=JROTlICT)  548 549  98  551  99  552  GO  TO 99  L=IABS(IROT )  IF(IROT.LT.O)  IROT=0  CONTINUE  EPS=0.00116  553 554  P(l,l)=1.0 NCOUNT=0  555  MM1=(L*(L-i))/2  556 557  TV(1) =0.0  558 559  NV=1 FN=N  LL=L-1  560  FFN=FN**2  561  C0NS=1.O/SQRT(2.0)  562 563  DO  564  565 566 567  ZER0=l.E-4 3  4  31=1,N  H(I)=0.0  DO 4 I = 1 , N DO 4 J = 1 , L H{I)=H( I ) + A ( I , J ) * A ( I , J )  568 569  DO 5 I = 1 , N H(I)=SQRT(H( I ) )  570  DO 5 J = 1 , L IF(H(I ).GT.O. )  571  572 573 574  57 5 576  577 578 579  25 5 26 222  A(I,J)=A(I,J)/H(I) CONTINUE NV=NV+1 TV(NV)=0.0 LV=NV-1 DO  88 J = 1 , L  DO  77  AA=0.0 BB=0.0  582 58 3 584  CC = A ( I , J ) * A ( I AA=AA+CC  585 586  77  588 589  9  590  88  13  592  593 594 595  32 10 14  1 = 1,N  ,J)  BB=BB+CC**2 TV(NV)=TV(NV)+(FN*BB-AA**2)/FFN IF((NV-SO).GE.O) GO T O 9 9 9 IF((ABS(TV(NV)-TV(LV))-l.E-6).LE.O. )  DO  500  J=1,LL  DO  500  K=II,L  11=J + l  591  GO TO 5  A(I,J)=0.0 GO T O 2 6  580 581  587  GO T O 9 8  ICT=ICT+l  547  550  /U/ DATA RP / • ) •/ IF(KENT.GT.O) N=NOS GO T O 8 0 5  UA T A IU!  537  IF((NCOUNT-MM1).GE.0)  GO T O 5 0 0  IF((ABS(P(1,1))-ZER0).LE.0.) NCOUNT = 0 AA=0.0  211  GO TO 1 4  GO T O 9 9 9  J VO  BS-U.U  597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607  CC=0.0 DD=0.0 DO 1 5 1 = 1 , N U=(A(I , J ) + A ( I , K ) ) * ( A ( I , J ) - A I I , K ) ) T = A ( I, J ) * A ( I , K ) T=T+T CC=CC+(U+T)*(U-T) DD=DD+2.0*U*T AA = A A + U BB=BB+T T=DD-2.0#AA*BB/FN  608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 62 7 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635  636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645  646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655  15  7  •  69 1433 1043  1041 1100 C C 8000 1150  1042 1200  9000  B=CC-(AA**2-BB**2)/FN P(1,1)=0.25*ATAN(T/B) IF((ABS(P(1,ID-ZERO).GT.O.) GO T O 6 9 NC0UNT=NC0UNT+1 . GO T O 5 0 0 TAN4P=T/8 IF(T-B)1041,1433,1042 IF((T+B-EPS).LT.O.) GO T O 5 0 0 C0S4T=C0NS SIN4T=C0NS GO T O 5 0 0 0 TAN4T=ABS(T)/ABS(B) I F ( ( T A N 4 T - E P S ) . L T . O . ) GO T O 8 0 0 0 C0S4T=1.0/SQRT(1.0+TAN4T**2) SIN4T=TAN4T*C0S4T  GO T O 5 0 0 0 IF(B.GE.O.) GO T O 5 0 0 SINP=CUNS COSP=CONS GO T O 1 0 0 0 CTN4T= A B S ( T / B ) IF((CTN4T-EPS ) .LT.O.) GO T O 9 0 0 0 SIN4T=1.0/SQRT(1.0+CTN4T**2) C0S4T=CTN4T*SIN4T GO T O 5 0 0 0 C0S4T=0.0  SIN4T=1.0 C0S2T=SQRT((1.0+C0S4T)/2.0) • SIN2T=SIN4T/{2.0*C0S2T) COST=SQRT((1.0+C0S2T)/2.0) SINT=SIN2T/(2.ONCOST) IFIB.LE.O.) GO TO 1 2 5 0 1300 COSP=COST SINP=SINT GO T O 7 0 0 0  5000  1250 7000 1400 1000  100 500  COSP=CONS*COST+CONS*SINT  SINP=ABS(CONS*COST-CONS*SINT) IF(T.GT.O.) GO T O 1 0 0 0 SINP=-SINP DO 1 0 0 1 = 1 , N AA = A ( I , J ) * C O S P + A ( . I , K ) * S I N P BB=-A(I,J)*SINP+A(I,K)*COSP A(I,J)=AA A(I,K)=BB CONTINUE GO T O 2 2 2  212  656 65 7 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672  999 6 2004  2005 2009 2010 2014 2015 903  DO 6 1 = 1 , N DO 6 J = 1 , L  A(I,J)=A(I,J)*H(I) NC=NV-2 DO 2 0 1 5 J = 1 , L AA=0.0 DO 2 0 0 9 1 = 1 , N IF<(ABS(A(I,J))-.50).LE.O.) GO T O 2 0 0 9 AA=AA+ A ( I , J ) CONTINUE IFIAA.GE.O.) GO T O 2 0 1 5 DO 2 0 1 4 1 = 1 , N A(IfJ)=-1.0*A(I,J) CONTINUE WRITE(6,903) FORMAT(1H0,'MATRIX ROTATED TO VARIMAX CRITERION') I F ( K E N T . G T . O . ) GO TO 6 0 0 8  673  6007  CALL  675 676  6008  GO T O 6 0 0 9 CALL OUTFL  674  677  6009  678  681  683 684 685 686 687 688 689  MTTOUT(A,N,L)  (A,N,L,KLSTRS,JV)  N0C=L  BBCT=0.0  679 680 682  N6=L  DO 6 1 0 1 = 1 , L BBC(I)=0.0 DO 6 1 1 J = 1 , N  611  B B C ( I ) = B B C ( I ) + A ( J , I ) * A ( J » I )  620  WRITE (6,620) F O R M A T ( I H , ' S U M A( I , J ) S Q . F O R E A C H WRITE(6,942)(BBC(I),1=1,L)  610  907  BBCT=BBCT+BBC(I)  WRITE (6,900) WRITE(6,907) FORMAT(IH , ' S U M A ( I , J )  690 691  DO 3 2 2 1 = 1 , N BBC(I)=0.0  692 693  DO 3 2 2 J = 1 , L S U M X X ( I, J ) = A ( I, J )  694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701  322  705  4085  707  900  708  909  942  710 711  712 713 714  715  AFTER  ROTATION')  BBC(I)=BBC(I)+A(I,J)*A{I,J) PCT=BBCT/FL0AT(N)*100.0  IF(KENT.GT.O) GO T O 4 0 8 3 WRITE( 6 , 9 0 9 ) ( I , R P » B B C ( I ) , 1 = I » N ) ' WRITE(6,900) WRITE(6,621) BBCT,PCT 621 O F O R M A T ( ' T O T A L SUM A ( I , J ) SQ = ' , I T OF T O T A L S C O R E V A R I A N C E . ' )  4083  709  S Q . FOR V A R I A B L E S  FACTOR')  4082  702 703 704 706  ROTATED  1F6.2/'WHICH  GO T O 4 0 8 5 WRITE(6,909) (KLSTRS(I,JV),RP,BBC{I), WRITE (6,900) CONTINUE  FORMAT  (  9X,  FORMAT(1H0)  2F10.2,  8(1X,IF 10.2))  FORMAT(10(IX,113,1A1»1F7«2)) RETURN  END C  C  SUBROUTINE I N T E G E R*2  DIMENSION  OUTFL  KLSTRS  (R,M,K,KLSTRS,JV)  R(2C0,200),  213  KLSTRS(200,200)  I  = 1,N)  IS',1F6.2,' PERCEN  717 718 719 720  930  721 722  723 724 725 726  997 995 999  727 728  C  729  C  730 731  C  732 733 734  FORMAT ( 2H , I 5, I X , F l 3 . 4 , 9 ( F 1 0 . 4 , 1 X ) ) KMANY=(((K-l)/10+l)*10) DO 9 9 5 L 2 = 1 0 , K M A N Y , 1 0 Ll=L2-9 L=L2 IF(L2.EQ.KMANY)  END  C O N T R O L PGM SUBROUTINE INTEGER*2 ODIMENSION 20,200)  735  COMMON  736 737 738 739 740  1  L=K  WRITE(6,910HI,I=L1,L) DO 9 9 5 1=1,M WRITE(6,930)KLSTRS(I,JV),(R{I,J),J=L1,L) RETURN  CNTRL  -  KLSTRS A(200,200),DUM1(200),DUM2(2C0),SCORES(200,  A,DUM1,DUM2,SCORES,KLSTRS,NOS,NOV,NOF,NRO,CUT,JVAL  N=NOS L=NOF IF((JVAL-1).GE.O)  GO  CR2=.50*CUT CR3=.70*CUT  741  CR4=.60*CUT  742 743  NX2=L+L IF(L.GE.50)NX2=100  744  C  745  DO  185  748  DO  9  J=1,L  750  DO  9  1=1,N  746 747  185  749  751 752  IT  1 =  3 7 9  11=11+1 KLSTRS(II,J)=I CONTINUE  757 758 759 760 761 762 763  103  DO 1 0 9 J=1,L JP=JP+1 11=0 DO 1 0 9 1=1,N C=-1.0*A(I,J) IF((C-CR2J.LE.O.) 11=11+1  766  109  CONTINUE  768  C  756  767  769  770  TO  9  GO  TO  109  GO  TO  A(I,J)=C KLSTRS(II,JP)=I  L=2*L JJ=0  DO  771  775  GO  JP=L  764 765  772 773 774  18  1,N  C=A(I,J) IF((C-CR2).LE.0.)  753 754 755  TO  DO 1 8 5 I T 2 = 1,NX2 KLSTRS(ITi,IT25=0 11=0  15  J=1,L  IISUM=0 '  50),. KLSTRSC20  8  DO 1 0 1 = 1 , N IF(KLSTRS(I,JJ.LE.O) IISUM=IISUM+1  10  CONTINUE  214  10  776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835  C IF((IISUM-4J.GE.0) I I S M = I ISUM+1  50  GO  51 61  TO  GO  t 51,51, 52,53),I  TO  11  ISM  IF(L.GT.NOF) GO T O 1 5 WRITEt6,61)J,CR2 OFORMAT{1H013HFACT0R COLUMN,I 3/1H,71HBEING CROPPED 1EWER T H A N TWO I N D I V I D U A L S GREATER THAN, F 5 . 2 ) GO  TO  C 52  111 = 0  70  1=1 + 1  15  BECAUSE IT HAS  F  1=0  IT=KLS IF(  TRS(I,J)  IT.EQ.O)  GO  C=A(IT,J)  IFtC.GT.CR3)  GO  71 62 63  IF(  111-2)  71  1 1 1 = 1 1 1 + 1  62,11,100 GO  WRITE(6,63)  TO  ONLY  MORE  GO  TO  TWO  THAN * ,  INDIVIDUALS  15  (C.GT.CR3) TO 80  93  III  GREATER  DROPPED  THAN',  F5.2,  BECAUSE  •  1=1+1 IT=KLSTRS(I,J) IF( I T . E Q . O ) GO  GO  TO  3UT  NOT  11  TO  82  1 1 1 = 1 1 1 + 1  IF( I I I - 3 ) 9 2 , 1 1 , 1 0 0 IF (L.GT.NOF) GO T O 1 5 WRITEt6,93) J,CR2,CR4,CR3 OFORMAT ( 1H0, 13HFACT0R COLUMN,  TO  13  /  IH  ,  'BEING  DROPPED  :  ;  ; : 5 r  15  12  1=1,N  KLSTRSU,JJ) CONTINUE  =  KLSTRS(I,J)  NOF=JJ  IT  JVAL=JVAL+1 IF ( J V A L . G T . N O F )  GO  TO  215  21  "  WITH L O A D I N G S G R E A T E R THAN« , F 5 . 2 / ALL 0 V E R ' , F 5 . 2 , •NOR A R E 2 O F T H E M GREATE  JJ=JJ+1 DO  C 18  ;  = 1 1 1 + 1  IFt(II1-2).GE.O)  GO  12 15  , * B E I NG  81  1 HAS ONLY THREE S U B J E C T S 2 ' B U T T H E Y ARE N E I T H E R 2R T H A N ' , F5.2)  C 11  IH  111=0 1=0  C=AtIT,J) IF(C.GT.CR4) GO T O 9 0  82 92  /  111=0 1=0 1=1 + 1  IF GO  90  13  LOADED  F5.2)  IT = K L S T R S t l . J ) IF t IT.EQ.O) GO T O C = At IT,J)  81 91  15  J,CR2,CR3  OFORMAT ( 1 H 0 , 1 3 H F A C T 0 R C O L U M N , IS  80  70  IF t L . G T . N O F )  2  C 53  TO  TO  HA  BECAUSE  IT  836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 85 0 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895  20 21  CALL U5Q END F I L E 3 CALL WPOUT RETURN  C 100 101  c c  WRITE (6,101) FORMAT(1H0, 23HERR0R EXIT FROM CONTROL) STOP END  C THERE  IS NO  SUBROUTINE NUMBER N  C c SUBROUTINE DSQ INTEGER*2 KLSTRS ODIMENSION D S R ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , 1KLSTRS(200,200)  •  DUM1(200), DUM2(200),  SCORES(200,50)  c OCOMMON DSR,DUM1,DUM2,SCORES,KLSTRS,NOS,NOV,NOF,NOR,CUT,JVAL, 1KLI,AVDSQ,N0C,MVAL,II  c N=NOS L=NOV JV=JVAL TR=1000 IF(N.EQ.O) GO  TO  40  c 101 1  c  5 4  31 32 40  45  C 41  WRITE(6,1) JVAL FORMAT (1H1, 28HSHAPE FAMILY  FACTOR  DO 5 1=1,N IDI=KLSTRS(I,JV) I F ( I D I . L E . O ) GO TO 4 CONTINUE KLI=I-1 I=N N=KL I AN=N WRITE(6,31) FORMAT(1H0,21HPR0FILE MEMBERS A R E — ) WRITEt6,32)(KLSTRS(I,JV),1=1,N ) FORMAT(I3,29( 1H,,I3) ) GO TO 41 N=KL I AN=N JV = 1 NOF = i DO 45 1=1,N KLSTRS(I,1)=I NOS=KLI READ(3)((SCORES(M,J),J=l,L),M=1,KLI) AL = L DO 51 1=1,N IDI=KLSTRS(I,JV) DO 51 K=1,N IDK=KLSTRS(K,JV) SS=0.0 DO 50 J=1,L  216  NUMBER—,13)  896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 92 2 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 94 3 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 95 5  50 51 C  74  70 80 C 71 C 72  C C  SSS=SCORES( ID I , J ) - S C O R E S U D K , J ) SS=SS+SSS*SSS DSR(I,K)=SQRT(SS)/AL AVDSQ=0.0 DO 74 1=1, N DO 74 K=1,N DSRIK,I)=DSR(I,K) AVDSQ=AVDSQ+DSR(I,K) ANN=AN*(AN-1.0) AVDSQ=AVDSQ/ANN WRITE(6,80) F0RMAT(1H0,25X,'D-ANALYSIS  OF SHAPE FAMILY') .  CALL TRDSQ CALL F A R F ( l ) RETURN END SUBROUTINE TRDSQ INTEGER*2 KLSTRS  C ODIMENSICN DSQ(200,200),DUM1(200), DUM21200), SCORES(200,50) , 2KLSTRS1200,200) OCOMMON DSQ,DUM1,DUM2,SCORES,KLSTRS,NOS,NOV,NOF,NOR,CUT,JVAL, 1KLI,AVDSQ,N0C,MVAL,II C 6 C 1  5 10 C  WRITE ( 6 , 6 ) AVDSQ FORMAT(1H0.30X,'MEAN D FOR THIS FACTOR SUBTRACTS ALL D'S FROM LARGEST VALUE N=KLI BIG=DSQ(1,1) DO 10 1=1,N DO 10 K=1,N I F ( ( B I 6 - D S Q ( I , K ) J . G E . O . ) GO TO 10 BIG=DSQ(I,K) CONTINUE  IS',F7e2) PRESENT.  DO 20 1=1,N DO 20 K=1,N 20 DSQ(I,K)=BIG-DSQ(I,K) WRITE(6,11)BIG 11 FORMAT('OD''S TRANSFORMED BY SUBTRACTING EACH FR0M'F7.2,'" 1DING BY THE LARGEST ELEMENT TO GIVE SIMILARITY INDICES' ) BIG=0.0 DO 2 5 1=1,N DSQI I, I) = 0.0 DO 25 J=1,N I F ( D S Q { I , J ) . G T . B I G ) 8IG=DSQ(I,J) . 25 CONTINUE IF(BIG.EQ.O.) GO TO 1000 DO 30 1=1,N DO 30 J=1,N 30 DSQ(I,J)=DSQ(I,J)/BIG 1000 RETURN END C " AND DIVI C  217  956 957 958 959 960 961 96 2 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 98 5 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015  C  bUBKUUl INfc MUUhi. I N T E G E R*2 K L S T R S 0DIMENSI0N A ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , DUM<200), K F A M I 2 0 0 ) , S C O R E S ( 2 0 0 , 5 0 ) , 2 KLSTRS(200,2C0) OCOMMON A, DUM,KFAM, S C O R E S , K L S T R S , NOS, NOV, NOF, NRO, CUT, J V A L , K L I , 1AVDSQ, NOC, M V A L , I I , MM N=KL I L = NOC JV=JVAL  C  501 C  6 57 10 c 11  49 50 C 51 52 17 66 C 13 C 12 20 65 100  MM = 0 DO 100 M=1,L MVAL=M PIVCR=CUT*0.5 DO 501 I T 1 = 1 , N 0 S KFAM(IT1)=0 11=0 DO 10 1=1,N C=A(I,M) IF((C-PIVCR).LT.O.) 11=11+1 ILK=KLSTRS(I,JV) KFAM(II)=ILK CONTINUE.  GO  TO  10  I F ( ( I I - 2 ) . G T . O ) GO TO 12 PIV=1.25*PIVCR 11=0 DO 5 0 1=1,N C=A(I,M) I F U C - P l V ) . L T . O . ) GO TO 50 11=11+1 CONTINUE  I F ( ( I I - 2 ) . G E . O ) GO TO 13 WRITE(6,52)JV,M O F O R M A T ( I H 1 , 21H T H I S I S S H A P E F A M I L Y , 13 / 1H0,•D-FACTOR NO. WRITE(6,17) ,13? OFORMAT ( 1 H 0 , 5 2 H I N S U F F I C I E N T S U B J E C T S TO E S T A B L I S H A S T A B L E IN) PATTEf ' WRITE(6,66) PIVCR.PIV OFORMAT ( 1 H 0 , 3 5 H P I V O T C R I T E R I O N F I R S T EMPLOYED WAS, F6.2.U /1H, 113H L A T E R I T WAS, F 7 . 2 ) • GO TO 100 PIVCR=PIV  MM = MM+ I W R I T E ( 6 , 2 0 ) JV,MM F O R M A T { 1 3 H 1 S H A P E F A M I L Y , 13 / BM P A T T E R N , 13) WRITE!6,65)PIVCR FORMAT{ 1 H 0 , 2 7 H P I V 0 T C R I T E R I O N EMPLOYED I S , F 6 . 2 ) C A L L MATCH CONTINUE CALL CNTRL RETURN END S U B R O U T I N E MATCH  218  1U16  U  1017  INTEGER*2  1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034  KLSTRS  0 C O M M O N A t DUM 1 , K F A M , S C O R E S , K L S T R S , N O S , N O V , N O F , NRO , C U T , J V A L ,,• 1AVDSQ,NOC,MVAL,I I ,MM,MTOT,NPCH,TSD KLI, O D I M E N S I O N A ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 )', DUM 1 { 2 0 0 ) , K F A M I 2 0 0 ) , S C 0 R E S ( 2 0 0 , 5 0 ) , " 1(200,200),PMEANC 50),VARWT(50), PDSQ1200), CDSQ(i00,100), 2,TMN(50) ,TSD(50) KTEMP(IOO) DATA RP /•)•/ C  4 7 3  .  IF((11-100).LE.O) GO T O 3 WRITE(6,7) FORMAT (lHO,/« LOADED SUBJECTS GO T O 1 0 0 0 MV=MVAL K L I T = K LI N=NOS  AL=L Al1=1I IF ( N P C H . E Q . 1 0 0 ) GO T O  1038  WRITE(3)  1039  54  1041 1042  1043  1044 1045 1046  MT0T=MT0T+1  DO 4 1 0  IT1=1,N0V  410 51  VARWT(IT1)=0.0  TMN(IT1)=0.0  WRITE(6,51) FORMAT (1H0,20HPIVOT  PROFILES  IF((KFID-KLSTRStJ,JV)).NE.O)  DO  52  1052 1053  55  1055  C  1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064  C  58  10  55  J=1,KLIT  GO  TO  55  KTEMP(I)=J  CONTINUE WRITE(6,58)(KFAM(I), FORMAT  1=1,11)  (I 3 , 2 9 ( I H , , I 3 ) )  DO 1 0 J = 1 , L TP7=0.0 DO 1 0 1 = 1 , 1 1 IT=KFAM(I) PMEANlJ)=PMEAN(J)+SCORES(IT,J)*A(IT,MV)*A(IT,MV) TMN(J)=TMN(J)+SCORES(IT,J ) TP7=TP 7+ TSD(J ) VARWT(J)=VARWT(J)+SCORES(IT,J)*SCORES(IT,J)  C  1066  TP7=TP7*.01/AL  1067  SUMWT=0.0  1068  DO  1069 1070  5  1071  C  5  1=1,11  IT = K F A M ( I ) SUMWT=SUMWT+A(IT,MV)*A(IT,MV)  1072  DO 4 1  1074  TMN(J)=TMN(J)/A I I  1075  ARE—)  C  1050  1073  1  PMEAN(IT1)=0.0  1049  1065  STORAGE ROOM )  54  DD 5 5 1 = 1 , 1 1 KFID =KFAM(I )  1054  EXCEED  JV,MM  1047 1048  1051  DSQ FACTOR  L=NOV JV=JVAL AN=N  1035 1036 1037  1040  IN  J=1,L  PMEAN(J)=PMEAN(J)/SUMWT TP5=VARWT(J)/AII-TMN(J)*TMN(J)  219  "  KLSTRS  1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086  43 41 C  6 C 23  1087 1088  C  1089 1090  IF(TP5.LT.TP7) TP5=TP7 VARWT(J)=TSD(J)/SQRT(TP5) CONTINUE SUMJ=0.0 DO 6 J = 1 , L SUMJ=SUMJ+VARWT(J) WRITE(6,23) OFORMAT(1H0, « I N T E R P R O F I L E 1ABLE WEIGHTING)*)  DO 5 1 0  KI=KFAM(K)  1093  1096 1097  509  1098  510  1099 1100 1101  C  1102 1103  861  1104 1105  C  1106 1107  '  1108  469  1109 1110  710  1112  C  1116 1117 1118 1119  56 821  1111  711  1113 1114 1115  (BASED U P O N VARI  K=l, I I  DO 5 0 9 J = 1 , L SSS=SCORES(IK,J)-SCOBES(KI,J) SS=SS+SSS*SSS*VARWT(J) CDSQ(I,K)=SQRT(SS)/SUMJ  SUM=SUM+CDSQ(I,K) SUM=SUM/((AII-lo)*AII) WRITE(6,861) SUM  FORMAT (• M E A N D = » , F 5 . 2 ) C A L L OUTMCH ( C D S Q » 1 1 , 1 1 » KFAM) DO 4 6 9  IT1=1,N0S  DO 7 1 0  J=1,L  PDSQ U T i ) = 0 „ 0 DO 7 1 1 1 = 1 , U  SST=SCORES(I,J)-PMEAN(J) PDSQCI)=PDSQ(I)+SST*SST*VARWT(J)  P D S Q d )= PDSQ( I  J/SUMJ  I F ( N P C H . E Q . I O O ) GO TO 5 6 W R I T E O ) IPDSQCI )t 1=1,N) WRITE (3) (VARWT(J), J=1,L)  WRITE (3) (PMEAN(J), J=1,L) WRITE (6,821) O F O R M A T ( 1 H 0 / 1 H 0 , « D FOR A L L P R O F I L E S 1G W E I G H T I N G S F O R V A R I A B L E S — )  COMPARED  WITH  8  1120 1121 1122 1123 1124  12 21  1125  1126 1127  11  1128  1129  C  1130 .  WRITE(6,12) (I,RP,PDSQ(I ) , 1=1,N) FORMAT (10(3X,I 2,1A1,F7.2)) WRITE(6,21) FORMAT ( 1 H 0 / 4 0 H 0 V A R I A B L E WEIGHTS FOR WRITE (6,12) (J,RP,VARWT(J), J=1,L) WRITE(6,11)  FORMAT ( 1 H 0 / 1 H 0 , 4 1 H W E I G H T E D MEANS W R . I T E ( 6 , 1 2 M J , R P , P M £ A N ( J ) , J =1,L) RETURN  1000  WRITE(6,822)  822  FORMAT(22H2ERROR  1132  1135  MEMBERS  SS=0.0  1094 1095  1134  PATTERN  SUM=0.0  1091  1133  FOR  DO 5 1 0 1 = 1 , I I IK = K F A M ( I )  1092  1131  D««S  EXIT  STOP  C  END  C  220  FROM  MATCH)  THIS  THIS PATTERN  PATTERN  ON V A R I A B L E S  USIN  ARE--)  FOR  PATTER? --)  oi/ci\uo^ t ivx:  1137 1138 1139  C C  1140 1141 1142  910 930  1143 1144 1145 1146  997  1147 1148 1149  995 999  1150 1151  1152  1153 1154  1155 1156 1157 1158 1159  .  C  1188 1189  1190  1191 119 2 1193 1194 1195  \ i\fn|r>) TWIT H  n /  FORMAT(1H0,9X,10(I 10,IX) ) FORMAT(2H ,I5,1X,F13.2,9(F10.2,1X))  KMANY=(((K-l)/10+l)*10) DO 9 9 5 L 2 = 1 0 , K M A N Y , 1 0 Ll=L2-9 L=L2 IF(L2.EQ.KMANY) L=K W R I T E t 6 , 9 1 0 ) ( K F A M ( I ) , I = L 1, L ) DO 9 9 5 I=1,M  WRITE(6,930)KFAM(I),(R(I,J),J=L1,L) RETURN END  SUBROUTINE WPOUT WRITES OUT S T O R A G E ODIMENSION 1 JV(200),  TSD(50),TMN{50), DS(200,200),VARWT(200,50),PTRN .. M V ( 2 0 0 ) , DUMK 10000) (200, 50),  IFIMTOT.GT.100) GO T O 6 0 9 IF(MTOT.EQ.O) GO T O 6 0 IF(NPCH.EQ.IOO) GO T O 6 0 REWIND 3  1164 1165 1166  1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187  riv^ n  COMMON D S , J V , M V , D U M 1 , V A R W T , P T R N , N O S , N O V , N O F , N R O , C U T , J V A L , K L I 1,N0C,MVAL,I I,MM,MTOT,NPCH,TSD,TMN AVDSQ  1162 1163  1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181  i  R ( 10 0 , 10 0 ) » K F A M ( 2 0 0 )  c  C  1160 1161  1167 1168 1169  DIMENSION  L=NOV N=NOS READ(3)  998  KEY  I F ( K E Y . E Q . 1 0 0 ) GO TO 6 0 IF(KEY.GT.O) GO T O 9 9 9 WRITE(6,11)  11  OFORMAT(IH1, ' D FOR P R O F I L E S COMPARED ILE WEIGHTINGS •/•OSHAPE/NO.» )  999  WRITE(6,992) OFORMAT (lHl.'D FOR P R O F I L E S COMPARED WITH T H E P A T T E R N U S I N G ILE W E I G H T I N G S AND S T A N D A R D S C O R E S • / • O S H A P E / N O . • ) VARIAB DO 1 0 M = 1 , M T 0 T READ(3) JV(M), MV(M) READ ( 3 ) (DS(M,I), 1 = 1,N) READ ( 3 ) (VARWT(M,J),J=1,L) READ ( 3 ) (PTRN(M,J),J=1,L) REWIND 3 IF(NPCH.LE.O) GOTO 801 CALL OUTPCH (DS,MTOT,N,JV,MV) CALL OUTWPIDS,MTOT,N,JV,MV)  992 997  10  802 801 51  702 701 704 703 50  GO  TO  997  IF(KEY.GT.O) GO T O 5 0 WRITE(6,21) CALL OUTWP(PTRN,MTOT,L,JV,MV) IF(NPCH.LE.O) GO T O 701 CALL OUTPCH(PTRN,MTOT,L,JV,MV) WRITE(6,31) IF(NPCH.LE.O)  GO  TO  703  CALL OUTPCHlVARWT,MTOT,L,JV,MV) CALL OUTWP(VARWT,MTOT,L,JV,MV) GO T O 6 2 WRITE(6,15)  221  WITH  THE  PATTERN  USING VARIAB  1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255  unif tji^ 1PATTERN / 1 H 0 , 9HSHAPE/NC.) FOR THE CALL OUTWP(PTRN,MTOT,L,JV,MV) DO 20 J = 1 , L DO 20 M=1,MT0T 20 PTRN(M,J)=PTRN(M,J)*TSD(J)+TMN(J) WRITE(6,21) 21 OFORMAT (1H1,49HWEIGHTED MEAN RAW SCORES ON VARIABLES FOR 11H0, 9HSHAPE/N0.) PATTERN/ IF(NPCH) 7 0 5 , 7 0 5 , 7 0 6 706 CALL O U T P C H I P T R N , M T 0 T , L , J V , M V ) 705 CALL 0UTWP(PTRN,MTOT,L,JV,MV) WRITEl6,25) 25 OFORMAT(1H1,45HSTANDARD SCORE VARIABLES WEIGHTS FOR PATTERN / 19HSHAP E/NOo ) 1H0. CALL OUTWPtVARWT,MTOT,L,JV,MV> DO 30 J=1,L DO 30 M=l,MTOT 30 VARWT{M,J) = VARWT(M,J)/TSD( J ) WRITE(6,31) 31 OFORMAT{IH1, 'RAW SCORE VARIABLE WEIGHTS FCR PATTERN* / 1 1H0, 9HSHAPE/N0.) IF ( N P C H . L E . O ) GO TO 707 708 CALL OUTPCH (VARWT,MTOT,L,JV,MV) 707 CALL OUTWP(VARWT,MTOT,L,JV,MV) 62 IF ( N O F . E Q . l ) GO TO 60 IF ( M T O T . L T . 2 ) GO TO 60 NOS=0 KL I = MTOT JVAL=1 NPCH=100 WRITE(6,401) 401 FORMAT(1H1, 'SECOND-ORDER D FACTOR ANALYSIS OF OBTAINED MCDAL IRNSM PATTE REWIND 3 WRITE (3) ((PTRN(M,J),J=1,L),M=1,MT0T) WRITE(3) KEY END F I L E 3 REWIND 3 CALL DSQ 60 CALL TRR C BACK TO MAIN PGM FOR NEXT DATA SET 609 WRITE ( 6 , 6 1 1 ) 611 OFORMAT ( « ERROR EXIT FROM WPOUT.—MORE THAN 50 PATTERNS— 1T0RAGE.') EXCEEDS S STOP END C C SUBROUTINE OUTWP(R,M,K,JV,MV) C DIMENSION R ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , J V ( 2 0 0 ) , M V ( 2 0 0 ) 910 FORMAT(1H0, 9X, 10111) 930 FORMAT (IH , 1 2 , I 5 , F 1 3 . 2 , 9 ( F 1 0 . 2 , I X ) ) KMANY=(((K-l)/10+l>*10) DO 995 L2=10,KMANY,10 Ll=L2-9 L = L2 IF(L2.EQ.KMANY)L=K 997 WRITE(6,910)(I,I=L1,L) u r u i M T M i  j  o  r  i  K  c  i  u  n  i  222  L  U  PILHIN  J I H U U H K U  OV,UISL:O  V H M H U L C O  1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268  995 999  C C SUBROUTINE  930  OF  DIMENSION RI200,200),JV(200),MV(200) DATA RP / ' ) •/ F O R M A T ( I X , I 3 , I H / , I 3 , 2 X , 5 ( 1 X , I 3 , A 1 , F 7 . 2 ) , 5X , I 2 ) KMANY=(((K-l)/5+l)*5) DO 9 9 5 L 2 = 5 , K M A N Y , 5 Ll=L2-4  1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275  OUTPCH(R,M,K,JV,MV)  C  1269  END  DU 9 9 5 1=1, M WRITE(6,930) J V ( I ) , MV ( I ) , ( R ( I , J ) , J = L 1 , L ) RETURN END  997 995 999 FILE  L=L2 I F ( L 2 . E Q . K M A N Y ) L=K DO 9 9 5 1 = 1 , M WRITE(7,930) JV(I),MV(I),(J,RP,R(I,J),J=L1,L),I RETURN END  $SIG  223  APPENDIX F  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF SCORES ON PROFILES AND THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FACTORS IDENTIFIED THROUGH. Q ANALYSIS  224  The following discussion explains the algebraic basis behind the fact that the maximum number of factors identified i n a Q analysis of profiles i s one less than the number of variables on the profiles, i f this number of variables Is less than the number of subjects. The data matrix of profiles of n scores for N subjects, can be represented by X, where X = x^ x  •• • • 2j*j x  nl  *nN  Because the elements of X are empirical data, a l l rows and columns of X are likely to be linearly 9ndependent, and hence the rank of X i s equal to the smaller of i t s two dimensions.  I f n i s less than N, the  rank of X i s therefore n. Z i s the standardized version of X, where Z  =  z  l l 12 "' 1N z  z  nl  Z  *••nN Z  SD. i s the standard deviation of scores on profile j . J The rank of Z i s n-1, since the n  score on a profile i n stand-  ard form can be calculated from a knowledge of the other n-1 scores. If R Is the matrix of correlation between profiles, then R = ZZ_^_ N Since the rank of the product of a matrix with i t s transpose i s equal to the rank of the matrix, then the rank of R i s n-1. Therefore when R i s factor analyzed, the maximum number of principal axes cannot exceed n-1. 225  APPENDIX G  AN OUTLINE OP THE PROCEDURE  226  1.  I d e n t i f y Antecedent A f f e c t i v e Responses o f Concern (a)  I d e n t i f y the course r a t i o n a l e ( i ) obtain o f the ( i i ) refine o f the  s o l i c i t e d statement o f the general purposes course the statement through d i s c u s s i o n s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s general purposes i n the form o f behavior d e l i n e a t i o n s  (b)  I d e n t i f y a f f e c t i v e goals w i t h i n the course r a t i o n a l e  (c)  I d e n t i f y the objects o f the a f f e c t i v e responses, and the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g term w i t h i n the a f f e c t i v e goals  (d)  I d e n t i f y objects t o which a f f e c t i v e responses acquired i n the past may i n f l u e n c e the attainment o f the a f f e c t i v e goals  2.  Measure the Antecedent A f f e c t i v e Responses o f Concern (a)  Construct the SD instrument ( i ) the SD objects are t o be defined from 1 (c) and 1 (d) above ( i i ) the SD s c a l e s are s e l e c t e d t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f and r e l e v a n t t o the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s from 1 (c) above  (b)  AdiTiinister the SD under c o n t r o l l e d c o n d i t i o n s  (c)  F a c t o r analyze responses t o SD scales ( i ) analyze the responses t o each object separately ( i i ) i d e n t i f y that number o f f a c t o r s f o r each object which provides the most meaningful c l u s t e r o f s c a l e s ( i i i ) the scores on the c l u s t e r s o f s c a l e s r e f l e c t i n g the a f f e c t i v e response i n the course goals are measures o f the antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses o f concern  3.  C l a s s i f y Students on the B a s i s o f S i m i l a r Sets o f Antecedent A f f e c t i v e Responses (a)  Perform a Q-analysis o f the p r o f i l e s o f a f f e c t i v e scores  227  ( i ) i d e n t i f y the number o f d i f f e r e n t f a m i l i e s o f p r o f i l e s s i m i l a r on the b a s i s o f shape (by studying the eigenvalues of the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix) ( i i ) i d e n t i f y the number o f d i f f e r e n t patterns w i t h i n each shape family d i s t i n g u i s h e d on the b a s i s o f l e v e l and d i s p e r s i o n (by studying the eigenvalues o f the s i m i l a r i t y matrix f o r each shape f a m i l y ) (b)  Describe the groups o f students i d e n t i f i e d i n terms o f t h e i r a f f e c t i v e responses on t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e modal p a t t e r n  I d e n t i f y Teaching S t r a t e g i e s  f o r Each Group o f Students  (a) I d e n t i f y those a f f e c t i v e responses toward objects on the modal patterns o f each group which d i s p l a y greatest incong r u i t y w i t h the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course (b) Select teaching s t r a t e g i e s whose f u n c t i o n i s t o change these a f f e c t i v e responses ( i ) i n c l u d e s t r a t e g i e s which i d e n t i f y the o b j e c t , the a f f e c t i v e term, and the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g ( i i ) focus on the p r o v i s i o n o f f a c t s which are r e l e v a n t t o the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g  228  APPENDIX H  CROSS-VALIDATION STUDY OF THE "TYPES" OF STUDENTS IDENTIFIED THROUGH Q-ANALYSIS  229  CROSS. VALIDATION OP MODAL PATTERNS  D e f i n i t i o n o f Cross V a l i d a t i o n Cross v a l i d a t i o n i n i t s most d i r e c t form r e f e r s t o the r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y o r s t a b i l i t y o f a s e t o f r e s u l t s derived from two o r more random samples s e l e c t e d from the same population.  This type o f study  i s important i n areas where r e s u l t s derived from a random sample o f a given s i z e are t o be g e n e r a l i z e d t o represent the population.  I f these  r e s u l t s are not reproducible or s t a b l e from one random sample t o others then sampling e r r o r o r i n s u f f i c i e n t sample s i z e might be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor.  I f e i t h e r o f these was a f a c t o r , the r e s u l t s would therefore  not be relevant t o , o r v a l i d representations o f , the population. Cross v a l i d a t i o n can a l s o r e f e r t o the r e p l i c a t i o n o f r e s u l t s on the same sample through the a p p l i c a t i o n o f two d i f f e r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l techniques whose purposes are the same.• Approaches t o cross v a l i d a t i o n undertaken i n t h i s study analyzed samples o f 200 students u t i l i z i n g both types o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n s described.  I m p l i c a t i o n s o f Cross V a l i d a t i o n There i s some u n c e r t a i n t y regarding the l e g i t i m a c y o f cross v a l i d a t i o n as an i s s u e i n t h i s study.  I n f a c t , cross v a l i d a t i o n may not  be an i s s u e i f one argues that the Procedure i s not a p p l i e d t o samples, but r a t h e r t o populations, where the population i s defined t o be a c l a s s of students  (e.g., the Physics 110 c l a s s was the population o f i n t e r e s t ) .  From another standpoint however, a p o t e n t i a l user o f the Procedure might be I n t e r e s t e d t o know t h a t the Procedure i s robust, i n the sense that i t 230  produces s i m i l a r c l u s t e r s o f people when a p p l i e d t o l a r g e random samples of students s e l e c t e d from the same population. - A l t e r n a t e l y , since random samples (even l a r g e random samples) d i f f e r , and indeed may d i f f e r q u i t e considerably when d e a l i n g w i t h types o f persons, i t could be argued that what one wants i s a procedure which i s s u f f i c i e n t l y s e n s i t i v e (as opposed t o robust) t o be able t o detect d i f f e r e n t types o f people i n c l u d e d i n d i f f e r e n t random samples. In r e a l i t y , the p r o b a b i l i t y o f reproducing the same s e t o f modal patterns from two d i f f e r e n t random samples drawn from the same population was b e l i e v e d t o be extremely remote, since there were no a p r i o r i grounds f o r b e l i e v i n g that s p e c i f i c "types" o f i n d i v i d u a l s ( i . e . , p a r t i c u l a r types o f p r o f i l e s ) e x i s t e d , would each be represented by s e v e r a l students, and hence would be i d e n t i f i e d as modal patterns i n d i f f e r e n t samples.  Each-  p r o f i l e w i t h i n a sample, o r p o p u l a t i o n , might therefore be d i f f e r e n t than a l l others.  Even by s i m p l i f y i n g these nine v a r i a b l e p r o f i l e s by  dichotomizing the p r o f i l e v a r i a b l e values t o p o s i t i v e (+) or negative (-), q  the p r o f i l e s could take on up t o 2^. o r 512 d i f f e r e n t shapes.  Two random  samples o f 200 students were therefore f e l t t o be f a r too s m a l l t o be " r e p r e s e n t a t i v e " , o r t o be expected t o e x h i b i t " s t a b i l i t y o f types". Sample s i z e s f o r l a r g e r than would ever be encountered i n p r a c t i c e would be r e q u i r e d t o attempt r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of these types. Results o f the Cross V a l i d a t i o n Studies Two cross v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s r e l a t e d t o the r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y o f modal p a t t e r n s , o r "types" o f students from d i f f e r e n t random samples o f students drawn from the same population —  the Physics 110 course.  These  types were i d e n t i f i e d through the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the f a c t o r a n a l y t i c and 231  Q-analysis procedures described i n Chapter I I I .  I n the f i r s t o f these  s t u d i e s , the responses o f a random sample o f 400 students t o t h e SD s c a l e s f o r the  Objects  Physics,  Problem  Solving  and  Natural  Phenomena  were subject t o p r i n c i p a l components and varimax a n a l y s i s i n the manner reported i n Chapter I I I .  The SD s c a l e f a c t o r s I d e n t i f i e d f o r these  three objects represented the same u n d e r l y i n g dimensions as those i l l u s t r a t e d i n Appendix C. were produced.  P r o f i l e s o f f a c t o r scores over these dimensions  At t h i s point the 400 students and t h e i r p r o f i l e s o f  f a c t o r scores were randomly d i v i d e d i n t o two groups o f s i z e 200.  These  groups were each subjected t o a Q-analysis u s i n g Guertin's computer program.  As i n the a n a l y s i s o f Group A i n Chapter I I I , 16 types o f students  were i d e n t i f i e d i n both groups.  There was no, o r a t b e s t , marginal  r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y o f types across the two samples. 'Tj-io second study o f t h i s nature d i f f e r e d from the f i r s t only i n that the random d i v i s i o n o f the 400 students i n t o two groups o f 200 took place before the p r i n c i p l e component and varimax a n a l y s i s of the SD scales.  The s c a l e f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d f o r each o f these groups again  represented the same u n d e r l y i n g dimensions as those i l l u s t r a t e d i n Appendix C, and again there was no r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y of types across the two samples. In the second type o f cross v a l i d a t i o n study performed, the c l u s t e r i n g s o f students i d e n t i f i e d through Q-analysis was compared t o c l u s t e r i n g s i d e n t i f i e d by an independent form o f a n a l y s i s whose purpose . was the same as the purpose of Q-analysis — ings o f s i m i l a r p r o f i l e s .  that i s , t o i d e n t i f y group-  In t h i s a l t e r n a t e a n a l y s i s , each student was  i n i t i a l l y defined as a group.  These 200 groups were then reduced by a  232  s e r i e s of step decisions u n t i l a l l 200 a s p e c i f i e d number o f groups.  subjects have been c l a s s i f i e d i n t o  That i s , i n t h i s a n a l y s i s the 200 p r o f i l e s  were compared over the nine v a r i a b l e s , and p r o g r e s s i v e l y groups i n such a way  as to minimize the o v e r a l l estimate of v a r i a t i o n  w i t h i n these groups.  In each s t e p , t h i s a n a l y s i s combines some p a i r of  groups, thus reducing the number of groups by one. rnining which groups were t o be combined was p l e c t e d i n the d  associated i n t o  The c r i t e r i o n deter-  p r o f i l e s i m i l a r i t y (as r e f -  i n d e x ) , where the t o t a l "withln-group" v a r i a t i o n  was  the f u n c t i o n t o be minimally increased at each step i n the process.  Q-  a n a l y s i s , and t h i s a l t e r n a t e a n a l y s i s d i f f e r i n many b a s i c respects. p The a l t e r n a t e a n a l y s i s uses a d i f f e r e n t index of s i m i l a r i t y , (d a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ) , and a l s o does not consider the  versus  orthogonality  or independence of the groups i d e n t i f i e d . Nor i s i t concerned w i t h the progressive amount of v a r i a t i o n i n scores accounted f o r by each s u c c e s — s i v e group i d e n t i f i e d . A comparison of the c l u s t e r s of p r o f i l e s i d e n t i f i e d through Qa n a l y s l s and t h i s a l t e r n a t e form of a n a l y s i s revealed an overlap i n c l u s t e r s of approximately 50%.  S p e c i f i c a l l y , 97 of the 200 p r o f i l e s  were found to f a l l i n t o c l u s t e r s s i m i l a r t o Ik of the 16 modal patterns i d e n t i f i e d through the•Q-analysis.  In view o f the d i f f e r e n t approaches  taken w i t h i n the two forms of analyses compared, t h i s r e s u l t was  felt  t o lend some.support t o the v a l i d i t y of the c l u s t e r s i d e n t i f i e d . Implications The  of the Results cross v a l i d a t i o n studies which i d e n t i f i e d d i f f e r e n t c l u s t e r s  of people i n the two random samples would not be reassuring  233  f o r the person  who wants robustness, while f o r the person who wants an instrument  suf-  f i c i e n t l y s e n s i t i v e t o detect d i f f e r e n c e s between random samples, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t sets of c l u s t e r s may be r e a s s u r i n g . the person who w i l l work w i t h populations  For  ( i . e . , e n t i r e classes of  and not random samples, t h i s r e s u l t may be o f l i t t l e consequence.  students) It is  therefore somewhat u n c e r t a i n as to how one should i n t e r p r e t the r e s u l t s o f these cross v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s .  This uncertainty i s magnified by the  apparent e f f e c t s of the s m a l l sample s i z e of 200 students, and the f a c t that r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample s i z e s would bf n e c e s s i t y be too l a r g e t o handle i n a p r a c t i c a l manner.  The r e s u l t s o f the cross v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s  would therefore seem t o suggest areas o f f u r t h e r research, research which r e l a t e s t o the general v a l i d i t y o f the Procedure as a whole. One such independent study that might be p r o f i t a b l y undertaken • would be t o i d e n t i f y the modal patterns w i t h i n a c l a s s , present d e s c r i p t i o n s of these modal patterns t o the c l a s s , and ask each student w i t h i n the c l a s s t o i d e n t i f y that c l u s t e r which he f e l t was most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f himself.  One could then compare the students' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s w i t h  the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d through Q-analysis.  Perhaps the u l t i m a t e  study of the v a l i d i t y and usefulness of the Procedure would be t o i d e n t i f y and describe groups of s i m i l a r students, use the d e s c r i p t i o n s t o i d e n t i f y the s p e c i a l teaching s t r a t e g i e s f o r each of the groups, d i v i d e each group randomly i n t o two equivalent subgroups, provide the s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n t o only one o f these subgroups, provide no s p e c i a l treatment t o the other subgroup, and then analyze the e f f e c t s of the s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n r e l a t i v e to the e f f e c t s of no s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n i n terms o f the a f f e c t i v e objectives of i n s t r u c t i o n . 234  APPENDIX I  THE RELEVANCE OP AFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO THE AFFECTIVE GOALS OF THF. COURSE  235  RELEVANCE OP MEASURED AFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO AFFECTIVE GOALS '  Instructions You are asked t o judge the relevance o f a s e t o f a f f e c t i v e responses t o a set of a f f e c t i v e goals f o r the course, Physics 110. The next page contains a statement o f the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course Physics 110.  Study t h i s statement c a r e f u l l y .  Then t u r n t o the l a s t  page which describes a s e t o f a f f e c t i v e responses r e l a t i n g t o hov; students ' f e e l ' about c e r t a i n o b j e c t s .  Study these a f f e c t i v e responses  i n terms o f the a f f e c t i v e g o a l s , and then p l a c e a check mark (V)  beside  those a f f e c t i v e responses which r e f l e c t the ' f e e l i n g s ' r e f e r r e d t o i n the goals.  236  PHYSICS 110  A study o f the statement o f the Physics 100 Course R a t i o n a l e i d e n t i f i e d the a f f e c t i v e goals o f the course.  This statement i n d i c a t e d  t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t o r ' s main m o t i v a t i o n f o r teaching t h i s course was ". . . t o make physics enjoyable and i n t e r e s t i n g t o the students".  In  a d d i t i o n t o t h i s very general g o a l , t h e I n s t r u c t o r wanted h i s students t o be predisposed toward physics as: (1) a powerful way t o understand a wide range o f n a t u r a l phenomena, (2) a b a s i s f o r working i n s c i e n c e , technology, and t o some extent i n medicine, and (3) an e n t e r p r i s e o f s o c i e t y w i t h Important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r human w e l f a r e . I n h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f (1), the i n s t r u c t o r i n d i c a t e d he would attempt t o expose the s t r u c t u r e s i n and commonalities among n a t u r a l phenomena by showing that a few b a s i c laws o f physics are s u f f i c i e n t t o r e l a t e and thereby understand a vast amount o f experiences.  In this  r e s p e c t , he hoped students would f e e l " i n t e l l e c t u a l excitement" at being able t o see "the beauty o f a l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e i n nature", and t h a t t h i s s t r u c t u r e would "demystify" n a t u r a l phenomena, making many more phenomena understandable.  I n d i s c u s s i n g (2), the i n s t r u c t o r d i s c l o s e d t h a t he  wished students t o see t h a t an understanding o f the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of physics i s needed f o r work i n a d i v e r s e v a r i e t y o f s c i e n t i f i c p r o f e s s i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n , he wished problem s o l v i n g t o be seen as a valuable and powerf u l means f o r o b t a i n i n g an understanding o f how physics works.  237  The  i n s t r u c t o r ' s d i s c u s s i o n s o f (3) i n d i c a t e s that he wished students t o see the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between science and s o c i e t y and t h e i r mutual responsibilities.  A f f e c t i v e Rating  Obj ect  E v a l u a t i o n (Importance and i n t e r e s t ) Potency (power) Comprehensibility (understandable)  1. Physics 2. Physics 3. Physics 4. 5. 6. 7.  Problem Problem Problem Problem  Solving Solving Solving Solving  E v a l u a t i o n (importance) Evaluation (interest) Potency (power) Comprehensibility (understandable)  8. 9. 10. 11.  Natural Natural Natural Natural  Phenomena Phenomena Phenomena Phenomena  E v a l u a t i o n (importance) Evaluation (interest) Potency (power) Comprehensibility (understandable)  12. I n t e l l e c t u a l Excitement 13. I n t e l l e c t u a l Excitement 14. I n t e l l e c t u a l Excitement  E v a l u a t i o n (importance and i n t e r e s t ) Potency (power) Comprehensibility (understandable)  15. My Previous Physics Course 16. My Previous Physics Course 17. My Previous Physics Course  E v a l u a t i o n (importance and i n t e r e s t ) Potency (power) Comprehensibility (understandable)  18. My Previous Physics Instructor 19. My Previous Physics Instructor 20. My Previous Physics Instructor 21. My Expectations Toward Physics 110 22. My Expectations Toward Physics 110 23. My Expectations Toward Physics 110  E v a l u a t i o n (importance  and i n t e r e s t )  Potency (power) Comprehensibility  (understandable)  E v a l u a t i o n (importance and I n t e r e s t ) Potency (power) Comprehensibility  238  (understandable)  

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.831.1-0055684/manifest

Comment

Related Items