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., University of 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 Faculty of EDUCATION We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. September, 1974 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r equ i r emen t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I ag ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l owed w i thou t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia Vancouver 8, Canada Co-Chairmen: W. B. Boldt, Ph.D. T. D. M. McKie, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Fundamentally, the goals of education are not unlike the goals of medical therapy; that i s , t o f a c i l i t a t e a desired change i n an i n d i v i d u a l . In medicine, the prerequisite to the se l e c t i o n of any therapeutic regime i s the diagnostic process — the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the antecedent states of 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 state. The educational analogue to the medical diagnostic process i s the process of i d e n t i f y i n g the ante-cedent knowledge, s k i l l s , values or attitudes possessed by students entering a course which may influence the process of a t t a i n i n g , or the attainment of, 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 strategies which take the ante-, cedent conditions i n t o account and which are directed at the f u l f i l l m e n t of course goals. In education however, feasible methods have hot been i d e n t i f i e d f o r taking these antecedent conditions i n t o account. In s e l e c t i n g teaching strategies 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 to take these conditions i n t o consideration on an i n d i v i d u a l basis. Nor i s i t useful to consider class averages on these variables, since students vary so widely i n terms of them. This study, working i n the context of science education, and dealing with a f f e c t i v e variables, developed a procedure f o r providing knowledge of antecedent a f f e c t i v e variables i n a form permitting 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 se l e c t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the purpose of t h i s study was to develop a t h e o r e t i c a l l y based and methodologically i i i sound systematic procedure (generically "the Procedure") f o r (1) i d e n t i f y -i n g , describing, and reporting the degree of pro-ness or con-ness of a f f e c t i v e antecedents deemed to be important to 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 teaching strategies which take these antecedent conditions i n t o account and which are directed 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 to i d e n t i f y and describe subgroups of students w i t h i n a class i n terms of s i m i l a r sets of antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses to 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 ratings 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 strategies f o r these subgroups can then be selected or provide a r a t i o n a l basis f o r changing those antecedent ratings which are most incongruent with the desired a f f e c t i v e ratings r e f l e c t e d i n the a f f e c t i v e goals. 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 clear and accurate statement of the rationale f o r a course. Measurements of the degree of students' pro-ness or con-ness on the a f f e c t i v e responses of concern are obtained through the use of the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l technique. The Q-analysis technique, a technique f o r categorizing people, i s employed to i d e n t i f y the subgroups of students. . The educational value of the Procedure rests upon i t s a b i l i t y to 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 to provide a cl e a r description of a f f e c t i v e antecedents i n a form permitting 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 i d e n t i f y -ing teaching strategies directed toward the f u l f i l l m e n t of a f f e c t i v e goals. In t h i s study, the r e s u l t s of the application of the Procedure i v to an introductory university physics course supported the general effectiveness of the contribution of each component of 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 to be gathered supporting the v a l i d i t y of the Procedure, and (2) that the time and monetary demands associated with the Q-analysis 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 of the Procedure i n some educational settings. Recommendations and guidelines regarding future applications of the Procedure are provided, including recommendations regarding v a l i d i t y studies and the use of less costly alternatives to the SD and Q-analysis components. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT . . i i i LIST OF TABLES • v i i i LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ' . . i x ACKHO^TJBDGEMEKTS x i CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 The General Problem and i t s Context . . 1 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Problem . 2 Framework 3 The S p e c i f i c Problem 5 The Organization of t h i s Report 6 I I . THE PROCEDURE . 7 Overview 7 A Construct of Affect 8 A Theoretical Presentation of the Procedure . . . . 12 Terminology . . • 36 Summary 36 I I I . AN APPLICATION OF THE PROCEDURE 38 Introduction 38 Plan of t h i s Chapter 39 The Development of the Course Rationale . . . . . . 39 The Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l . 42 Q-Analysis of the P r o f i l e s of A f f e c t i v e Scores . . . 6l The Selection of Strategies 77 .IV. AN EVALUATION OF THE PROCEDURE 96 Overview of the Chapter . . . 96 C r i t e r i a f o r Evaluating the Procedure 97 An Evaluation o f the Procedure 98 Evaluation Summary 118 vi Page CHAPTER V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 121 Summary . . . . . . . . 121 Recommendations 122 Conclusions 129 FOOTNOTES . . , 130 BIBLIOGRAPHY 138 APPENDIX A. THE PHYSICS 110 COURSE RATIONALE l 4 l B. THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL INSTRUMENT. 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 193 F. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF SCORES ON " PROFILES AND THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FACTORS IDENTIFIED THROUGH Q-ANALYSIS 224 G. AN OUTLINE OF THE PROCEDURE . . . 226 H. CROSS VALIDATION STUDY OF THE "TYPES" OF STUDENTS IDENTIFIED THROUGH Q-ANALYSIS 229 I. THE RELEVANCE OF AFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO THE AFFECTIVE GOALS OF THE COURSE" 235 v i i LIST OP TABLES Page TABLE 1 Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Concepts and Scales . . . . . . . 18 2 Percentage of Total Score Variance Accounted f o r by Each P r i n c i p l e Component and Varimax Scale Factor of the Object "Physics". . 53 3 . Percentage of Total Score Variance Accounted f o r by Each Varimax Factor of Each Object 54 4 Varimax Factor Structure of Affective Ratings 57 5 Eigenvalues of the Correlation and S i m i l a r i t y Matrices ' 66 6 A f f e c t i v e Variable Scores on the Modal Patterns 68 7 Printed Output of the P r o f i l e Analysis Computer Program 200 v i i i LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page ILLUSTRATION 1 Stake's Framework of the In s t r u c t i o n a l Process . . . . 4 2 Fishbein's Characterization of the Intervening Variables Between a'Stimulus and Responses to the Stimulus on a Set of Bipolar Measurement Scales . 10 t 3 Conventional Data Matrix of Test Scores . . . . . . . 2.0 4 An example of the Aff e c t i v e Ratings and Required I n s t r u c t i o n a l Strategies i d e n t i f i e d by a Modal Pattern 34 :;. 5 Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Data Matrices . . . . . . . . 49 6a Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 1 and Group 9 : 69 6b Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 2 and Group 10 70 6c Modal Patterns. Representing Students i n Group 3 and Group 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 6d Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 4 and Group 12 . . . . . . . . 72 6e Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 5 and Group 13 73 6f Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 6 and Group 14 74 6g Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 7 and Group 15 •_ 75 6h Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 8 and Group 16 , 76 7a The Negative. A f f e c t i v e Ratings and Required In s t r u c t i o n a l Strategies i d e n t i f i e d by Modal Pattern 1 79 i x ILLUSTRATION Page 7b The Negative A f f e c t i v e Ratings and Required In s t r u c t i o n a l Strategies i d e n t i f i e d by Modal Pattern 9 80 8 Procedure f o r Identifying the Af f e c t i v e Responses of Concern 100 9 The Relationship between Coombs and Meux's Teaching Function and Fishbein's Theory of the Development of Aff e c t i v e Responses . . . 118 x ACKNO\€£DGMENTS The w r i t e r wishes to express h i s sincere gratitude to his family, 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 patience they have displayed and the s a c r i f i c e s they have made during the course of t h i s study. Special acknowledgment i s given to Dr. Walter Boldt and Dr. Douglas McKie f o r the personal encouragement and guidance they gave to me and to the study, and to Dr. Walter Westphal f o r h i s v i t a l r o l e as the physics i n s t r u c t o r i n and impetus behind t h i s study. x i CHAPTER I TJNTRODUCTION 1.1 The General Problem and I t s Context Education i s a profession which i s unique i n the problems of practice that i t encounters. The educational philosopher, Broudy, sees these problems as a r i s i n g out of four 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 of (1) educational p o l i c y , (2) curriculum design, (3) schemes of organization and support, and (4) strategies of teaching and learning. In dealing with these problems, the professional 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 of the broad contexts i n which classroom problems occur: philosophy, psychology, sociology, and h i s t o r y . x Within Broudy's framework, the study to be presented I s one of formulat-i n g and j u s t i f y i n g strategies of teaching and learning, and w i l l be approached from a predominantly psychological point, of view. The general problem of t h i s study i s to develop a procedure which provides knowledge of the aff e c t students may have f o r or against aspects of teaching and learning science as a basis f o r s e l e c t i n g teaching s t r a t -egies directed toward the achievement of 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) to develop a procedure f o r i d e n t i f y i n g , describing, and reporting observations on the degree of pro-ness or con-ness of a f f e c t i v e antecedents' deemed to be inportant to science i n s t r u c t i o n ; and (2) to i d e n t i f y teaching strategies which take these antecedent conditions i n t o account and which are directed 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 with-i n the context of science education, and deal only with goals i n the af f e c t i v e domain, i t i s expected that the method w i l l be quite applicable across subject areas and, i n part, to cognitive goals as w e l l . 1.2 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Problem-There exi s t many viewpoints on the nature of science and science teaching w i t h i n which the significance of the problem can be presented. For example, i n Kuhn's view of science, science teaching i s seen, at least i n part, as a process of f a c i l i t a t i n g transformations of modes of observing and thinking about natural phenomena, a process of inducing something akin to s h i f t s i n Gestalt i n the nature of the student's per-ception of natural phenomena, or i n Kuhnian terminology, a process of 2 9 inducing paradigm s h i f t s . ' Evidence suggests that t h i s process of perceptual change or learning i s dependent upon a f f e c t i v e variables i n -4 fluencing the student. I t therefore 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 ategies, to take i n t o account how students f e e l about important aspects of the course such as the nature of science, 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 cognitive learnings are accompanied by the automatic a c q u i s i t i o n of a f f e c t i v e responses toward the cognitive learn-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 of educational goals f o r a science course, or the a c q u i s i t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c paradigms, i s dependent on the learning of 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 of appropriate teaching strategies to achieve these 2 a f f e c t i v e responses poses a problem deemed worthy of serious investigation. Selecting teaching strategies directed toward the achievement of af f e c t i v e goals, which take i n t o account the amount of affect f o r or against factors related to the attainment, of these goals, requires a considerable amount of subjective judgment on the part of the in s t r u c t o r . In the past, a systematic procedure .for meeting t h i s problem has not been available to classroom teachers. The procedure developed i n t h i s study purports to address t h i s problem through the integration of 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 to probe only discrete elements of the problem. 1.3 Framework of 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 guidelines f o r the conceptual development of the procedure presented i n t h i s study. His general framework, depicted i n Pig. 1, a s s i s t s the user i n integrating varied educational and develop-mental a c t i v i t i e s , often c a r r i e d out piecemeal, so as to determine (1) the effects of various factors on the outcomes of i n s t r u c t i o n and (2) the merits, to those concerned, of many aspects of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. 3 1 INTENTS OBSERVATIONS RATIONALE I •> ANTEC iDENTS t TRANSA -TIONS OUTO )MES DESCRIPTION MATRIX Fig. 1.—Stake's Framework of the Instructional Process Within Stake's frameworks the procedure described i n this study purports to provide a systematic means for ( 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 trans- actions , 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 ) estab-lis h i n g the "logical 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 Sp e c i f i c Problem The general problem of t h i s study can be delineated i n a number of steps to s p e c i f i c problems or subproblems. STEP 1 . A CONSTRUCT OF AFFECT Subproblem 1 • ' " Select, describe, and j u s t i f y the choice of a t h e o r e t i c a l construct of affect toward or against an object. STEP 2. A THEORETICAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROCEDURE Subproblem 1 Select and describe systematic procedures f o r i d e n t i f y i n g variables t o -ward which the a f f e c t i v e responses acquired i n the past appear important for the purpose of planning i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies. Subproblem 2 Select, describe, and j u s t i f y the choice of a psychometric technique f o r obtaining observations on the antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses. Subproblem 3 Select, describe, 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 of t h e i r antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses. Subproblem 4 Select and describe t h e o r e t i c a l positions and experimental findings per-tinent to the sel e c t i o n of teaching strategies which (1) appear approp-r i a t e f o r students - c l a s s i f i e d i n the di f f e r e n t categories i n terms of t h e i r antecedent a f f e c t i v e states, and (2) appear useful i n teaching directed toward a f f e c t i v e goals. As a u n i t , the procedures, techniques, and underlying t h e o r e t i c a l positions outlined i n t h i s step s h a l l henceforth be referred to 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 application of the Procedure to 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 of the psychometric and s t a t i s t i c a l aspects of the Procedure as evidenced i n STEP 3-Subproblem 2 Evaluate the usefulness of the Procedure to the problem of deciding among i n s t r u c t i o n a l alternatives f o r given a f f e c t i v e goals. This w i l l be done by determining the extent to which educators can u t i l i z e the descriptions of the types of 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 strategies developed i n STEP 3 on the basis of t h e i r approp-riateness to these types, I t i s the thesis of t h i s study that the Procedure w i l l a s s i s t i n estab-l i s h i n g a more systematic basis f o r meeting the problem of i d e n t i f y i n g teaching strategies directed toward the f u l f i l l m e n t of a f f e c t i v e goals. 1.5 The Organization of t h i s Report The organization of 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 of the stages o u t l i n i n g the s p e c i f i c problem. Chapter I I w i l l be devoted to STEP 1 and STEP 2, a t h e o r e t i c a l discussion of the Procedure. STEP 3 5 the app l i c a t i o n of the Procedure, w i l l be reported i n Chapter I I I . Chapter IV w i l l evaluate the Procedure, as outlined i n STEP 4, and Chapter V w i l l present a summary and the conclusions of t h i s study. The reader i s referred to Appendix G f o r a point form overview of the Procedure. 6 CHAPTER I I THE PROCEDURE This chapter w i l l present a description of, and j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the se l e c t i o n of the psychological constructs, 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 theories that are embodied i n the Procedure. The discussion to be presented w i l l explicate the subproblems of 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 Parts of the Procedure were developed w i t h i n the psychological context of Fishbein's mediation theory of learning, adapting Fishbein's multidimensional concept of " 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 of measuring af f e c t that i s consistent with h i s 8 theory. The development of 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 of intended a f f e c t i v e outcomes of a course u t i l i z e d systematic empirical 9 10 11 approaches supported by Scriven, Stake, and Taylor and Maguire. 12 Osgood's Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l technique, and multivariate analysis 13 14 techniques suggested by Stephenson and Guertin were used to i d e n t i f y and describe a f f e c t i v e antecedent responses. The development of approp-r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies to f u l f i l l the intended outcomes i s an empirical problem which derived some d i r e c t i o n from Fishbein's paradigm 15 of 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 of Affect 2.2.1 STEP 1 Subproblem 1 Select, describe, and j u s t i f y the choice of a t h e o r e t i c a l construct of affect toward or against an object. The Procedure i s i n , part an a p p l i c a t i o n of a quantitative method f o r i s o l a t i n g , measuring, and describing a f f e c t i v e responses as an important antecedent to 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 point of view or theory from which i t i s perceived. Therefore the function to 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 to describe the t h e o r e t i c a l framework from which i t was extracted. The study finds i t s place i n the context of a mediation theory IT l 8 of•learning proposed by Fishbein and b u i l t upon the work of Doob, 19 20 Osgood, Rhine, and others. The theory views the a c q u i s i t i o n of a f f e c t i v e responses as an automatic, non-verbalized process that occurs i n conjunction with concept learning. J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the choice of 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 " rests on (1) the existence of a method of measuring a f f e c t i v e responses that i s consistent with the theory and has been used successfully i n 21 conjunction with behavioral p r e d i c t i o n , and (2) the p o t e n t i a l use-fulness of the theory i n guiding the selection of i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies directed toward a f f e c t i v e goals and i n suggesting other questions f o r further empirical research dealing with methods of chang-ing a f f e c t i v e responses. Empirical studies employing e i t h e r Osgood's or Fishbein's s i m i l a r 8 t h e o r e t i c a l views use bipolar measurement scales. Both views assume that the intervening variables between a'stimulus (S) and a subject's responses ( R y ) to the stimulus on a set of these bi p o l a r measurement scales are i m p l i c i t or mediational learned responses ( r ^ ) . These -responses are assumed to be made up of a number of reaction components (r_J ^ w h i c h s r e s e e n 3 5 r e c i p r o c a l l y antagonistic corresponding to the l o g i c a l l y opposite character of the a d j e c t i v a l anchors used f o r the measurement scales. Further, hypothetical sets of such reaction compon-ents are assumed to be fu n c t i o n a l l y independent, corresponding to the uncorrelatedness of the common a f f e c t i v e factors underlying the scales. F i g . 2 depicts Fishbein's characterization of the intervening variables between a stimulus and responses to the stimulus on a set of bip o l a r measurement scales. The most s a l i e n t a f f e c t i v e factor has been i d e n t i f i e d as evaluative or a t t i t u d i n a l i n nature ( i . e . , a learned predisposition to respond favourably or unfavourably to a concept). Two less s a l i e n t , but dominant factors i d e n t i f i e d i n many studies have been characterized as potency and a c t i v i t y factors. Fishbein, b u i l d i n g on Osgood's work, has developed an analogue to the c l a s s i c a l conditioning model i n which these mediational i m p l i c i t responses are acquired or learned, through conditioning and mediation, as a concept i t s e l f i s learned. Fishbein uses the term "concept" to re f e r to ". . . any discriminable aspect of the individual's' world . . . any object, person, word, group of words, or so on." He refers to a b e l i e f as a hypothesis concerning the nature of a concept and i t s re l a t i o n s h i p to other concepts. Fishbein's model suggests that the strength of the learned a f f e c t i v e responses' associated with a concept 9 / r l l /?12 / / // / - S - S / / / / "22 "22 \ \ \ \ \ A 11-12-- s ^21 S21^ - S. 2k-\ \ A n l I L U n2 - n2-n l n l ' : r 2 - S 2; R-/ - i i 1 1 1 1 1 , , i n good bad \ Evaluation V i l I i i i n i c e awful ) R21 | i i i I i i i fast slow '•—R 2k | i i i I i i i I moving still / R n l |_ i i i I i i strong weak •r - S d n n — •-R n l 1 i , , 1 i , wide A c t i v i t y Potency narrow Stimulus Reaction Components ( r y ) Mediational Responses Responses on Bipolar Affective (r.) Scales Factors F i g . 2.—Fishbein's Characterization of the Intervening Variables Between a Stimulus and Responses to the Stimulus on a Set of Bipolar Measurement Scales i s determined by two factors: (1) by the saliency of 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 with the objects related to the concept by the b e l i e f s . For 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 that he i s Negro, knowledgeable, a musician, and overweight. Fishbein would predict that the student's a f f e c t i v e responses toward the teacher, as measured on a set of b i p o l a r adjective scales, would be a l i n e a r combination (weighted sum) of h i s a f f e c t i v e responses toward the concepts Negro, knowledgeable, musician, over-weight. . . Thus, the responses made to a concept by a subject on a set of bip o l a r a d j e c t i v a l scales are a function of the': person's s a l i e n t b e l i e f s about the concept (prominence of associations between the concept and related objects; operationally the p r o b a b i l i t y or in p r o b a b i l i t y that a rel 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 with the related objects. Fishbein views the uncorrelated factors underlying a set of a d j e c t i v a l scales as 23 defining the multidimensional a f f e c t i v e meaning system of the concept. One of the problems facing an i n s t r u c t o r with a large number of students i s how to take i n d i v i d u a l differences 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 to the i n s t r u c t o r , therefore, to have information about the structure of i n d i v i d u a l differences i n the class — the number of d i f f e r e n t types of students i n terms of consistencies i n t h e i r a f f e c t i v e responses to the concepts of concern, and the nature of the differences between these types or groups of students. Information of t h i s sort 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 of learning, f o r planning i n s t r u c t i o n a l 11 strategies. Fishbein's model of concept learning provides a convenient source of ideas about how a f f e c t i v e responses to concepts are acquired to suggest possible courses of action f o r the in s t r u c t o r . In Section 2.3.2 of 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 of learning w i l l be offered as a rationale f o r the use of the SD. 2.3 STEP 2: A 'Theoretical Presentation of the Procedure 2.3.1 STEP 2 Subproblem 1 Select 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 variables 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 of planning i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies. Assuming that the intended a f f e c t i v e outcomes of a course are connected to i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies and that these are i n turn 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 prerequisites to planning teaching t a c t i c s : the f i r s t i s the detailed s p e c i f i c a t i o n of 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 of which a f f e c t i v e responses acquired by students p r i o r to the course are of concern i n planning i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies directed toward the achievement of 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 of 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 within the context of Stake's general framework f o r meeting the preconditions of 24 educational evaluation. Broudy points out that educational goals can be spe c i f i e d at d i f f e r e n t levels of generality ranging from statements of high-order values, p r i n c i p l e s , or l i f e s t y l e s to statements of purpose f o r s p e c i f i c 12 courses, lessons, or 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 to the course, obtained by the Procedure, are planned to be of use i n the development of i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies to meet p a r t i c u l a r lesson or episode objectives. However, these objectives are but delineations of the more general purposes of the course. Consequently,•the affective-goals of 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 to be measured w i l l be those r e l a t i n g to the course as a unit . In Stake's fraiuework, these goals are embodied wit h i n the course r a t i o n a l e , the philosophic back-ground and general purposes of the program. The purposes stated w i t h i n the rationale can best be considered a c o l l e c t i o n of po 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 basis of a set of p r i n c i p l e s that he adheres to. The d i r e c t i v e s reported i n a rationale are based upon p o l i c i e s of other people, and are ei t h e r derived from persons i n more general positions of authority, or from persons delegated by the course i n s t r u c t o r to reach a p o l i c y . For example, a more general authority would be a funding agency which sets out some guidelines to which a new curriculum must adhere before i t acknowledges i t s f i n a n c i a l support. A group delegated authority would be physics students who were asked to decide on whether they wished a one hour problem t u t o r i a l every week, or every other week, whatever the authority, the course i n s t r u c t o r must stay wi t h i n the l i m i t s of i t s d i r e c t i v e s . Stake notes that i t i s often an u n f u l f i l l e d .responsibility of instructors to i d e n t i f y and describe educational goals. While there 13 e x i s t taxonomies of cognitive s k i l l s and a f f e c t i v e predispositions to a s s i s t i n t h i s task, 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 to be developed. As a r e s u l t , an accurate state-ment of a course rationale i s often d i f f i c u l t to obtain. Rirthermore, instructors often have only a t a c i t knowledge of t h e i r course rationale and when pressed, are often less than e f f e c t i v e at presenting i t . In view of 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 receive considerable assistance i n the c l a r i f i c a t i o n and refinement of 2 8 the course rationale. Taylor and Maguire present a t h e o r e t i c a l model of a procedure i n which objectives, 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 behavioral terms. Scriven alt e r n a t e l y r e -commends that general course objectives be c l a r i f i e d through the develop-ment of a bank of t e s t items that a student would be expected to succeed on i f he had achieved the objectives. Both these procedures were employed i n the development of the i l l u s t r a t i v e course rationale given i n t h i s study. As a cautionary note, Stake warns that the rationale must ultimately be expressed i n the instructor's own language. Outside suggestions and interpretations made during the developmental stages of the course rationale may be an obstacle, 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 rather than on the grounds that 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 to do. Appendix A contains the f i n a l version of the course rationale f o r the introductory 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 rationale may be abstracted information about the 1 4 a f f e c t i v e goals of the i n s t r u c t o r , a f t e r which i t i s possible to begin i d e n t i f y i n g those previously acquired a f f e c t i v e responses which may influence the attainment of these goals and should be considered i n the planning of i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies. . These responses, or a f f e c t i v e pre-conditions to i n s t r u c t i o n are i d e n t i f i e d through discussion sessions s i m i l a r to those used i n the development of the course r a t i o n a l e . The most obvious previously acquired a f f e c t i v e responses of impor-tance 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 ratings 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 of important a f f e c t i v e responses; the a f f e c t i v e responses toward those variables most closely related to the development of the student's incoming status on these a f f e c t i v e ratings. Fishbein's theory predicts that the a c q u i s i t i o n or development of 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 influenced to the greatest degree by a f f e c t i v e responses toward those variables r e l a t e d most cl o s e l y to 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 to change the student's incoming status on the a f f e c t i v e ratings 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 to change the a f f e c t i v e status on these r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s , or weaken the relationship between these variables and the concepts i n question. 2.3-2 STEP 2 Subproblem 2: Select, describe, and j u s t i f y the choice of a psychometric technique f o r obtaining observations on the antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses. Fishbein's mediation theory of learning has been selected to 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 of 1 5 a f f e c t i v e responses. The psychometric instrument used to measure these responses must therefore be consistent with 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 of objects or concepts are corrmunicated prima r i l y through adjectives, Osgood, whose main in t e r e s t was to measure * facets of meaning, assumed that adjectives could be used to obtain a 32 measure of "meaning". Working from t h i s assumption, Osgood sought to coordinate M s mediation theory with an instrument constructed to measure "meaning". Using a large sample of bipolar adjectives as anchors of r a t i n g scales, he obtained responses on these scales f o r a large number of d i f f e r e n t concepts. Subsequent analysis of these responses l e d him • to i d e n t i f y a number of common factors among the b i p o l a r adjective scales, notably those characterized as evaluative, potency, and a c t i v i t y factors. I t was these uncorrelated factors which Osgood used as a general measure of meaning of "dimensions" spanning the "semantic space" of the concepts. Within Fishbein's t h e o r e t i c a l framework these uncorrelated factors are said to define operationally the a f f e c t i v e meaning system of the concepts. In current usage, Osgood's instrument i s termed ge 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 refers to any c o l l e c t i o n of r a t i n g scales anchored by bi p o l a r adjectives. Appendix B provides a sample SD drawn from the physics course i n which the Procedure i s i l l u s t r a t e d . Consistent with common pr a c t i c e , the bipol a r adjectives i n t h i s sample are separated by seven scale positions. These positions are assigned i n t e g r a l values such as - 3 to +3, or 1 to 7. The clusterings of 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 analysis of the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of responses to the b i p o l a r adjective scales, followed by r o t a t i o n to 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 bi p o l a r scales. In general, the factors or 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 part-i c u l a r concept or set of concepts being judged. The l a t t e r phenomenon 34 i s known as concept-scale i n t e r a c t i o n . The p a r t i c u l a r choice of con-cepts and scales comprising the SD i n Appendix B was made to obtain a measure of the previously acquired a f f e c t i v e states i d e n t i f i e d as possibly influencing 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. These concepts and scales are summarized i n Table 1 . Many of the scales were o r i g i n a l , developed to 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 of concern i n t h i s one course. I t was not s u r p r i s i n g therefore to f i n d factors representing s a l i e n t a f f e c t i v e responses toward the concepts other than those characterized as evaluative, 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 to f i n d that the scales under d i f f e r e n t concepts clustered i n d i f f e r e n t ways, even though each concept was rated on the same scales. Several of Osgood's standard a d j e c t i v a l pairs which most c l e a r l y define his evaluative, potency, and a c t i v i t y dimensions were included w i t h i n the scales on t h i s SD to a i d i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the clusterings of the o r i g i n a l scales developed f o r t h i s study. The Procedure, i n being consistent with Osgood's and Fishbein's theoretical, views, u t i l i z e s factor analysis to e s t a b l i s h the measures of the a f f e c t i v e responses. The use of factor analysis makes the Procedure t e c h n i c a l l y unsuitable f o r courses with a small number of students. 1 7 TABLE 1 Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Concepts 1. physics 2. problem solving 3. natural phenomena 4. i n t e l l e c t u a l excitement 5. my previous physics course 6. my previous physics i n s t r u c t o r 7. 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 of response weights (+3) to (-3) 1. important - unimportant 2. applicable - not applicable 3. b e n e f i c i a l f o r society - harmful f o r society 4. active - passive 5. 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 ' 6. oriented toward p r i n c i p l e s - oriented toward facts 7. understandable - mysterious 8. valuable - worthless 9- large -- small 10. e f f i c i e n t - i n e f f i c i e n t 11. needed by society - not needed by society 12. challenging - not challenging 13- good - bad 14. r a t i o n a l - miraculous 15. a l i v e - dead 16. t h e o r e t i c a l - i n t u i t i v e 17. strong - weak 18. always fun - never fun 19. nice - awful 20. moving - s t i l l 21. should be guided by society - should not be guided by society 22. rewarding - unrewarding 23. easy - d i f f i c u l t 24. i n t e r e s t i n g - not i n t e r e s t i n g 25. 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 26. straight forward - t r i c k y 27. encouraging - discouraging 28. never d u l l - always d u l l 29. b e a u t i f u l - ugly 30. fast - slow 31. c l a r i f i e s - complicates 32. wide - narrow 33. meaningful - meaningless 34. necessary - unnecessary 18 However, t h i s i s not seen as a major constraint on the usefulness of the Procedure, since i t i s aimed at courses with larger numbers of students i n which instructors w i l l have d i f f i c u l t y i n taking i n d i v i d u a l differences 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. In the next stage of the development of the Procedure, students are categorized, again using factor analytic techniques, on the basis of t h e i r p r o f i l e of scores on these clusterings of highly correlated scales. A student's p r o f i l e i s defined by his scale-factor scores on each of the concepts. Since the SD concepts and scales are selected to r e f l e c t those a f f e c t i v e responses of concern i n the development of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t -egies, these p r o f i l e s express the student's positions on these a f f e c t i v e responses. 2.3-3 STEP 2 Subproblem 3 Select, describe, 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 of t h e i r antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses. Having obtained descriptions of students within a class on the basis of t h e i r antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses which may influence the f u l -f i l l m e n t of course•goals, the next stage of the systematic Procedure i s to i d e n t i f y types of students on the basis.of t h e i r p r o f i l e s of scores on these variables.. Q-analysis, a fa c t o r a n a l y t i c procedure f o r factoring people rather than t e s t s , has been selected as an appropriate means of i d e n t i f y i n g these types. This factor a n a l y t i c procedure i n t h i s context' does not enjoy the almost universal and t r a d i t i o n a l commitment that R analysis possesses i n the context of SD data analysis. In view of t h i s , 1 9 the s u i t a b i l i t y of t h i s technique to the proposed procedure w i l l be i l l u s t r a t e d through a discussion of i t s nature, i t s current status, and i t s strengths and weaknesses. Factoring people instread of items i s not a new idea. Names such as Spearman,^ Thomson,^ and B u r t , ^ have been associated with the cor r e l a t i o n of persons as variables since the very early 1900's. However, i n 1935, Stephenson published a paper e x p l i c i t l y recognizing the po t e n t i a l of factoring correlations between people. Since then he has been the main proponent and conceptual developer of the Q-analysis. Although controversy d i d develop between Stephenson and some exponents of conven-t i o n a l factor analysis concerning the p o t e n t i a l value of Q-analysis, i t has. been employed by behavioral science researchers of considerably varied backgrounds. Brown has published a bibliography of close to 600 such ..,„..,,,_... 39 auucues. The conventional data matrix X f o r factor an a l y t i c purposes has people as rows and te s t items or variables as columns, as depicted i n Fi g . 3. t e s t s X = persons Fig . 3.—Conventional Data Matrix of Test Scores X l l X12 . . . X l n X 2 1 X22 * « XN1 XNn 20 A standard analysis of the t e s t items or variables i n t o related clusters i s based upon the test 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 of the columns of X- That i s . each element r . . of R i s the c o r r e l a t i o n between the columns of scores on tests i and j . Factor analysis based upon the matrix R i s c a l l e d R analysis or R technique. I t i s the technique used to derive the scale factors from an administration of a Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l instrument, where the test items i n t h i s case are b i p o l a r adjective scales. R analysis provides a basis f o r deterrriining differences i n terms of attributes or t r a i t s w i t h i n or between samples of people. . I t i s also possible to i n t e r c o r r e l a t e the people or rows instead of the tests or columns of the X matrix, a procedure equivalent to i n t e r -c o r r e l a t i n g the columns of X'> the transpose of 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 basis 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 factor analysis of t h i s i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n matrix' establishes clusters or types of people wit h i n a sample. This procedure has been termed transpose, Inverse, or obverse factor analysis, 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 basic problem to be solved by Q-analysis i s to i d e n t i f y clusters of 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 to the shape, mean l e v e l of performance, or dispersion of a p r o f i l e , or any combination of these. The meaning of these forms of 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 below which u t i l i z e the same units of measurement. 15 150 30 300 15 150 30 300 '21 I f and P 2 were plo t t e d , they would be seen to have the same r e l a t i v e rnaxima and minima, or shape. However, the mean score or l e v e l of each p r o f i l e d i f f e r s greatly, as does the v a r i a b i l i t y or dispersion of scores w i t h i n the p r o f i l e . Guertin notes that while 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-nostic purposes, i n i t i a l consideration should be given to s i m i l a r i t y i n the sense of "congruence" between p r o f i l e s . Hence he-recommends the sel e c t i o n o f an index of 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 persion as w e l l as shape. This recommendation appears p a r t i c u l a r l y pertinent 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 of the pro-ness or con-ness of the responses. In reviewing the s i m i l a r i t y indices a v a i l a b l e , Guertin notes that 41 most of them ignore one or two of these c r i t e r i a . For example, the t r a d i t i o n a l index of s i m i l a r i t y , the product moment co r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , and the rank difference c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t are in s e n s i t i v e to d i f f -erences i n the l e v e l and variance of the p r o f i l e scores. Some trans-42 formations of 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 Gleser, J Osgood, and others as an index of 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 dispersion. The variations i n the use of the distance concept ar i s e from the s election of di f f e r e n t functions of the distance s t a t i s t i c , or from the process of transforming t h i s s t a t i s t i c from a measure of d i s s i m i l a r i t y to a measure of p r o f i l e s i m i l a r i t y . Some of the proposed indices based on the distance concept aressusceptible to a.second weakness of many•proposed s i m i l a r i t y i n d i c e s , the non-Gramian property of t h e i r i n t e r p r o f i l e matrix, which renders them 22 45 unsuitable f o r factor a n a l y t i c techniques. Guertin tested the r e l a t i v e merits of f i v e indices of s i m i l a r i t y by performing a Q-analysis on 3 sets of p r o f i l e s selected to c l u s t e r i n an obvious manner. Three of these indices were based on the following distance measures: (1) a simple sum of differences between scores on 2 n p r o f i l e s (dl^. = E (X„ - X^) ), (2) the sum of the squared differences 2 n i-1 ( d j k = ~ 3^) the square root of the l a t t e r ( d j k ) s where j and k represent persons. The remaining two indices were r , P C a t t e l l ' s . pattern s i m i l a r i t y coefficent, and cross products (cp). p Guertin found that d and d' tended to produce non-Gramian matrices and hence should be avoided. He also observed that factor analysis or r 46 and. cross products, contrary to the respective claims of C a t t e l l and 47 Nunnally, did not tend to 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 clusters i n the cases studied. The best separation between typ was found f o r the analysis employing d as a basis 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 also seemed not to lead to a non-Gramian matrix. The index of 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 derived through the following procedures: 1. X = -Cx..} i s the conventional score matrix, where the f i r s t sub-N n J 1 s c r i p t represents the person and the second subscript represents the t e s t . 2. D =w } N N J K = /n j i s the matrix of d values I (X,. - X, .) { 1=1 J l ^ } or indices of d i s s i m i l a r i t y . 23 3- C = {c > N N J K = {djyj^x } i s a matrix of indices of s i m i l a r i t y obtained by subtracting each element of JJ from the largest element of JJ (excluding diagonal values). 4. S = (s } N N = C i s a matrix of indices of s i m i l a r i t y N N C.„.v S.. where OiS.. < 1 i s obtained by MAX JK j k di v i d i n g each element of C b v t n e N N largest element i n C (excluding N N diagonal elements). Each diagonal element S.. of S i s i n i t i a l l y assigned 1 1 N N a value equal to largest value of S.^ . i n colurnri j y ond fiLnsl coiriruiJuictl11/y sstiirici'tGS are derived by an i t e r a t i v e procedure. S , with the f i n a l estimates of communality i n the diagonal, i s N N then subjected to a p r i n c i p a l axes analysis, a f t e r which a select number of axes are rotated to the varimax c r i t e r i o n . Guertin j u s t i f i e s the sele c t i o n of the largest value of i n column j as the i n i t i a l communality estimate by making an analogy to R analysis, where the simplest procedure f o r estimating communality i s to select the largest r i n the corresponding column. Guertin's i n i t i a l value of S.. f o r person j i s that index 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 of t h i s highest column value as an estimate of communality i s evidenced by the fact that i n Guertin's studies, the average i t e r a t e d communalities were 24 found not to exceed the i n i t i a l average estimates by more than 4%. H O 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 of whom favour R analysis which provides description i n terms of t r a i t s rather than types. For example, C a t t e l l ' s ambivalence to Q factor analysis i s based on the fact that people ( i . e . , types) are hard to r e f e r back to 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 basis f o r a wide con-demnation of Q-analysis, but rather as a guide which d i r e c t s Q-analysis away from studies which attempt to e s t a b l i s h constructs applicable to varied situations and populations. C a t t e l l himself writes that Q-analysis i s useful i n a d i f f e r e n t context, that of es t a b l i s h i n g typologies i n a 50 given population on an empirical, basis. This 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 raises 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. Guertin argues that most of 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 with d analysis, which encourages them to attend c a r e f u l l y to i t s t h e o r e t i c a l bases. He points out that analogous d i f f i c u l t i e s with the product-moment co 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 of o l d friends" A major c r i t i c i s m of d, f o r example, i s that i t makes no sense to apply i t to p r o f i l e s of non orthogonal or correlated v a r i a b l e s , since the 52 computation o f d assumes independence of t e s t variables. While C a t t e l l 53 and Overall 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 5 adjustments which correct f o r correlated variables, Nunnally and Guertin argue that i f t h i s c r i t i c i s m i s to be accepted, then one must also apply 25 i t to a conventional c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis of t e s t s . Nunnally shows that the product-moment co r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t for standardized scores 2 i s r e l a t e d to d by the expression r = 1 - d_. When r i s between two 2N variables, d i s the distance between the two i n the space of persons, where each person i s represented by an axis orthogonal t o that of a l l other persons. However, Nunnally notes that since people tend to correlate with one another on the basis of 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 variables can be represented by orthogonal axes i n the te s t space employed i n a d analysis of people. Nunnally observes that t h i s underlying f a u l t has not prevented the use of the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . In summarizing h i s argument against the above c r i t i c i s m , Nunnally states that there i s no mathematical necessity f o r r e s t r i c t i n g the use of d to those situations where the variables are independent. He points out that f o r mathematical analysis an orthogonal space Is constructed, and that the r e a l issue involved concerns the i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y of t h i s analysis. " I f an investigator can make sense of p r o f i l e c l u s ters regard-less of the correlations among va r i a b l e s , he has every r i g h t to use the 56 methods of analysis discussed." Having i d e n t i f i e d i d e a l i z e d types of students v i a a 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 learnings, f o r the purposes of t h i s study i t i s necessary to describe these types i n terms of a f f e c t i v e learnings representative of the people w i t h i n each type. While t h i s description can t y p i c a l l y be given by a p r o f i l e of mean scores of the people w i t h i n each type, Guertin points out that i t i s possible f o r every i n d i v i d u a l w i t h i n a "type" to have a p r o f i l e quite d i s s i m i l a r to the p r o f i l e of 26 the means. As an a l t e r n a t i v e , Guertin proposes modal patterns, or patterns representative of subjects most.typical of each type. S p e c i f i -c a l l y , a modal pattern i s a hypothetical p r o f i l e of average t e s t scores obtained from a t i g h t c l u s t e r of in d i v i d u a l s most representative of that type. As d i s t i n c t from a p r o f i l e of means f o r an entire group, a modal pattern i s a close approximation to a number of 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 refers to the frequent r e -57 currence of the p r o f i l e f o r members of 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 basis of p r o f i l e scores, and then describ-ing these types i n terms of modal patterns. Guertin has found i t best to i d e n t i f y the types through two operations-. I n i t i a l l y , he factor 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 matrix, which establishes factors or clusters of p r o f i l e s on the basis of shape only. A d matrix i s then obtained and factor analyzed f o r the p r o f i l e s within each "shape" factor i n d i v i d u a l l y , to determine whether each i n i t i a l c l u s t e r can now be further 58 subdivided on the basis of l e v e l and/or dispersion. Guertin's computer program was used as part of the Procedure, and i s described i n Appendix E. In t h i s study, the product of i t s use i s a set of modal patterns representing constructs, or i d e a l i z e d types of students i n terms of 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 variables. 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 i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies. 2 7 2.3.4 STEP 2 Subproblem 4 Select and describe t h e o r e t i c a l positions and experimental findings pertinent to the se l e c t i o n of teaching strategies 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 of t h e i r previous a f f e c t i v e states, and (2) appear useful i n teaching directed toward a f f e c t i v e goals. The Procedure to t h i s point has grouped students wit h i n a class * on one p a r t i c u l a r basis — the s i m i l a r i t y of t h e i r p r o f i l e s of antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses. I n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies must now be selected f o r each of these groups which w i l l best achieve the goals of the course. As discussed i n section 2.3.1 the a f f e c t i v e responses on the p r o f i l e s can be of two types: (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 variables strongly i n f l u e n t i a l i n the develop-ment of the student's incoming status on the a f f e c t i v e goals. I t i s 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 included 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 of 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 to each ap p l i c a t i o n of the Procedure, and can be guided by (1) the fact that i t i s d i f f i c u l t to inter p r e t p r o f i l e s with large numbers (10 or more) of variables and to a lesser degree (2) the empirical relationships observed to 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 to i d e n t i f y the antecedent status of each group on each of the a f f e c t i v e goals by studying the modal patterns of each group. This analysis determines the extent to which the i n s t r u c t o r must stress each of the a f f e c t i v e goals i n each group. I t may also be useful to 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 variables closely associated with the development of the students' i n -coming status on these goals, i f these variables are included on the p r o f i l e s . I f the incorning status on the a f f e c t i v e goals i s unfavourable, and selected variables associated with t h i s incoming status also e l i c i t unfavourable a f f e c t i v e responses, Fishbein's theory suggests that 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 re l a t e d unfavourable responses, or weakening the association between 59 these variables 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 analysis of the modal patterns 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 strategies to be selected must address, and (2) on the basis of Fishbein's theory, some means by which the strategies can address these goals. For example, one of the goals of the physics course to 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 to have students view physics as i n t e r e s t i n g . I f on entering the course t h i s group viewed physics as uninteresting, and also displayed 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 solving i n physics, then the i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies formulated to f u l -f i l l , t h i s goal could attempt to: (1) weaken the association between physics and the previous physics i n s t r u c t o r by displaying 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 solving by using problem solving exercises selected to be very i n t e r e s t i n g . In addition to the t h e o r e t i c a l guidance given by Fishbein's theory, d i r e c t i o n i n the selection of i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies also comes from empirical studies. Mager, for example, i n an empirical study of 65 former students, found that t h e i r present approach or avoidance tendencies toward s p e c i f i c academic subjects were developed to a large 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 riables, p a r t i c u l a r l y the i n s t r u c t o r . Because of these observed i n s t r u c t i o n a l influences on affe c t toward the subject matter, Mager compiled a l i s t of i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies which he claims are universal enough i n t h e i r effect to provide considerable guidance to the i n s t r u c t o r i n improving a student's affect 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 . ^ In the a f f e c t i v e realm of teaching and learning (and f o r that matter i n the cognitive realm as w e l l ) , education as a profession does not possess the t h e o r e t i c a l or empirical resources needed f o r "matching" .types of in d i v i d u a l s with types of i n s t r u c t i o n beyond those resources s i m i l a r i n nature to Pishbein's theory or Mager's empirical findings. These resources, together with add i t i o n a l research cn motivation, i n t e r e s t , d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l , mental set, and other a f f e c t i v e variables provide guide-l i n e s , but only guidelines, f o r determining the i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies needed to achieve an intended outcome f o r a given i n d i v i d u a l . Within these guidelines the sel e c t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r strategy must s t i l l be based to a large extent on the personal experience of the teacher. Smith, Meux, et a l have performed an empirical study which i s p o t e n t i a l l y useful i n the Procedure f o r i d e n t i f y i n g types of verbal teaching strategies an i n s t r u c t o r may use to achieve the a f f e c t i v e responses d e s i r e d . ^ Their descriptive study analyzes t r a n s c r i p t s of actual classroom discourse as a means of Id e n t i f y i n g , describing and c l a s s i f y i n g sets of verbal teaching strategies used to achieve selected types of goals. Smith and Meux do not attempt to r e l a t e p a r t i c u l a r 30 strategies to p a r t i c u l a r types-of students. Nor do they attempt to draw inferences about which strategies are most appropriate f o r achieving desired outcomes, although they do present l o g i c a l discussions of the types of information that must be relayed by the strategies to achieve these outcomes. Pedagogically, the concept of "strategy" advanced by Smith and h i s co-workers refers to a set of verbal actions that serves to a t t a i n 62 c e r t a i n r e s u l t s and to guard against others. They designate the verbal behavior occurring during a class session as a t o t a l discourse. The verbal behavior of one person at one point i n the t o t a l discourse i s 64 termed an utterance. "A segment of discourse consisting of a set of . utterances dealing with a single topic and having a single overarching 65 content objective" i s referred to as a venture. In t h e i r study of actual classroom discourses, they have i d e n t i f i e d eight d i f f e r e n t classes of ventures: conceptual, causal, p a r t i c u l a r , evaluative, i n t e r p r e t a t i v e , 66 procedural, reason, and r u l e . The focus of t h i s study's i n t e r e s t i s on "evaluative ventures". The ventures were further analyzed i n t o units termed "moves". A move i s a verbal a c t i v i t y which introduces one p a r t i c u l a r b i t of i n f o r -nation dealing with the venture objective. An i n s t r u c t o r , student, or an i n s t r u c t o r and one or more students together can make a move. The moves co n s t i t u t i n g evaluative ventures are those of importance to the Procedure. Six d i f f e r e n t groups of moves have been recognized i n evaluative ventures: i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , description, 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 with i n these groups are defined i n 31 Appendix D, and indicate those s p e c i f i c strategies that might be under-taken to develop a desired evaluative - response. . Evaluative ventures have as t h e i r overarching objective the development and j u s t i f i c a t i o n of an evaluative assertion or r a t i n g . The objects of an evaluative assertion, referred to as value objects, can be people, events, b e l i e f s , actions, arguments, p r a c t i c e s , and so on, and the value term i s usually 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 " , or " b e n e f i c i a l " . A statement applying a value 69 term to a value object i s c a l l e d a r a t i n g . An "evaluative r a t i n g " i n Smith's framework includes the notion of an " a f f e c t i v e response" i n F i s h -bein' s framework, as presented i n Section 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 j u s t i f i e d r a t i n g as being dependent on the following factors: (a) knowing the value object to be rated; (b) understanding the value term; (c) knowing the properties 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 to the kind of object being evaluated; and (d) knowing whether or not the part-i c u l a r object has the properties. 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 therefore be determined through a comparison of the c r i t e r i a l properties of the value term f o r the p a r t i c u l a r value object with the i n d i v i d u a l s ' actual b e l i e f s about 70 the q u a l i t i e s of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r value object. This view on the factors determining a f f e c t i v e responses i s compatible with Fishbein's perception of these factors. Smith and co-workers f e e l that t h e i r model of affect development i s often overly demanding to serve as a pedagogical model, and evaluative ventures not meeting i t s degree of subtlety should 71 not be considered "poor". 32 Coombs and Meux, b u i l d i n g on the e a r l i e r work of 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 evaluative 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 facts I I I Assessing the truth, of purported facts IV C l a r i f y i n g the relevance of facts V A r r i v i n g at a tentative value decision VI Testing the value p r i n c i p l e implied i n the decision These tasks can be f u l f i l l e d through moves made by an in s t r u c t o r alone, a student alone, or an i n s t r u c t o r or student together. These tasks therefore define the scope of the teaching functions to be served by an i n s t r u c t o r i n the development or j u s t i f i c a t i o n of an evaluative r a t i n g or a f f e c t i v e response toward an object. Within the context of the Procedure, Pig. 4 provides an example of the manner i n which the teaching functions I through VI can be used to guide an in s t r u c t o r i n the sel e c t i o n of teaching strategies. For example, i f R includes the students' r a t i n g of the "importance of physics", and i f a group (type) of students presently rates physics as "unimportant" (as the sample modal pattern i n F i g . H depicts) then S_^, S_^, . . . and S j, represent the scope of i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies or sets of moves which respectively address the teaching functions I through VI and which are needed to develop and j u s t i f y the evaluative r a t i n g "Physics i s Important". For the group represented by the sample modal pattern i n F i g . 4, the same considerations would apply to the aff e c t i v e r a t i n g represented by R_ and R_. The moves with i n the strategies S.,., corresponding to the 3 3 Modal Pattern (example) Physics Problem Solving Natural Phenomena Legend E = evaluation E i = importance E_ = interest C: comprehensibility P: potency Strategies An inst.ructional strategy (Sjj) i s a set of moves made by the teacher, student, or both, which serves a given teaching function (I through VI). A f f e c t i v e Ratings R l to be Addressed through Instruction I I I I I IV V VI R 2 I R J R R, R R R, R. S x i S xr i Sxzr_ \l SVTl S X 2 S X T 2 S X _ 2 ' S X V 2 SV2 SVT2 ^3 S _ 3 • S _ 3 SV3 SVT3 SI4 SJI4 Sm4 SV4 SVI4 S X 5 S X T 5 - S _ _ 5 SV5- SVI5 S X 6 S X T 6 S J 7 X 6 S X 7 6 SV6 S W T 6 S X 7 • S X T 7 S X _ 7 S r / 7 SV7 SVI7 SI8 Sxr_ Sx_s • S X V 5 SV8 SVT8 SI9 S X T 9 S T _ 9 SW9 SV9 SVT9 F i g . 4.—An Example of the A f f e c t i v e Ratings and I d e n t i f i e d by a Modal Pattern. Required Instructional Strategies teaching functions to be served, can be selected from the moves l i s t e d i n Appendix D. For example, the moves selected f o r the teaching function " i d e n t i f y and c l a r i f y the value question" can include: 1. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Value Object and/or Value Term 2. Description of Value Object 3. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Value Object 4. Instance Comparison of Value Object 5. E x p l i c a t i o n of the Value Term Sets of s i m i l a r moves or strategies can be i d e n t i f i e d f o r each teaching function. Sources such as FIshbein's psychological theory or Mager's empirical studies can be used at t h i s point to guide the selection of these moves. The teaching functions 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 evaluative r a t i n g i n question. For controver-s i a l or emotionally based ratings of a general nature such as "Nixon was a good President", i t may be necessary to 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 fashion. For less c o n t r o v e r s i a l , s p e c i f i c ratings such as "Ford cars are dependable" or "Physics i s important", i t may only be necessary to i n s t r u c t i o n a l l y address tasks I and I I . The students alone may f u l f i l l the tasks IV through VI. Decisions regarding the tasks to be addressed w i l l also be dependent on the students' f a m i l -i a r i t y with the value object and value term, and on the nature and sources of facts supporting the value statement. The value of Coombs and Meux's l i s t i s that i t provides a check l i s t or guide which d i r e c t s the i n s t r u c -t o r to consider the need to f u l f i l l each of these tasks through formal i n s t r u c t i o n . 35 F i g . 4 w i l l be used i n Chapter I I I to guide the selection of teaching strategies which w i l l address a sample group of evaluative ratings or a f f e c t i v e responses toward objects r e f l e c t e d i n the affec-t i v e goals of the Physics 110 course. 2.4 Terminology Within the context of Fishbein's theory the variables of concern to t h i s study have been referred to as "dimensions of the af f e c t i v e meaning system of a concept", " a f f e c t i v e responses to an object", or "a f f e c t i v e ratings". Smith, Meux, et a l r e f e r to these variables as "evaluative assertions or ra t i n g s " , and Coombs and Meux speak of "value judgments". Within the context of t h i s study these terms are considered synonymous. While the remainder of t h i s study w i l l consistently r e f e r to "objects" and not "concepts", the terms " a f f e c t i v e response to an object", " 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 of the Procedure presented has been guided by both t h e o r e t i c a l and empirical 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 Fishbein's mediation theory of learning. His theory i s used to guide both the selection and measurement of ante-cedent a f f e c t i v e responses and the sele c t i o n of strategies which attempt to develop or 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 sel e c t i o n of teaching strategies also 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 to the development and j u s t i f i c a t i o n of a value judgment. The empirically based stages'of the Procedure have been given major d i r e c t i o n by Stake's model of educational evaluation, Taylor and Maguire's and Scriven's systematic means of developing a course r a t i o n a l e , Osgood's and Fishbein*s SD measurement of a f f e c t i v e responses, Stephenson's and Guertin's application of factor analytic techniques, and the analysis of verbal strategies i n teaching f o r a f f e c t i v e outcomes developed by Smith and h i s co-workers. An application of the Procedure w i l l be 'discussed i n Chapter I I I . This application w i l l i l l u s t r a t e each stage of the Procedure, w i l l serve to point out some of the more technical aspects of 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 Introduction The need f o r the Procedure described i n Chapter I I arose' during a formative evaluation study of a f i r s t year physics course, Physics 110, at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. A description of t h i s course i s given i n Appendix A. U t i l i z i n g Stake's framework as a guide to t h i s 73 evaluation, two of the. i n i t i a l functions of the project were to form-ulate the course rationale and to measure the students' antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses that r e l a t e d to the a f f e c t i v e goals i n the rati 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 of each student, the class averages on these a f f e c t i v e responses, and the averages of various subgroups of the class defined on the basis of 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 of physics courses taken previously, sex, etc. Within the c l a s s , and wit 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 of 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 therefore of l i t t l e value f o r planning i n s t r u c t i o n . 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 useful to define groups empirically on the basis of t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y of antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses. At t h i s point i n the study of t h i s course the remaining elements of the Procedure described i n Chapter I I were not available. Hence while 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 of the Q-analysis and the 38 strategies selected 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 to 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 basis 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 Plan of t h i s Chapter This chapter w i l l follow the progression of steps i n the Procedure as delineated i n Chapter I I . The Physics 110 course data w i l l be used to 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 develop-ment of the SD instrument and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the students' a f f e c -t i v e responses through the analysis of t h e i r responses to t h i s instrument, (3) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and description of groups of students with 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 se l e c t i o n of a sample of i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies 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 of the Course Rationale As discussed i n Chapter I I , the course rationale 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 of a purpose may be e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y stated or i m p l i c i t l y r e f l e c t e d i n the statement of purpose.. Perhaps the most important and most d i f f i c u l t task wi t h i n the Procedure was to obtain an accurate and complete statement of the ra t i o n a l e . In a s s i s t i n g the i n s t r u c t o r to formulate h i s course rationale the investigator found the methods advanced by Taylor and Maguire (Section 2.3.1) to be the most productive. The investigator 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 state-ment of purposes was then viewed i n terms of i t s appropriateness or consistency with facts pertinent to the course, and i n terms of i t s l o g i c a l consistency with the s p e c i f i c value structures 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 discussion.sessions concerning these purposes between the i n s t r u c t o r and the investigator were audio-taped and analyzed by the investigator. The investigator then attempted various interpretations of the instructors statements i n the form of behavioral delineations, and at the next discussion session would present these interpretations to the in s t r u c t o r f o r acceptance, r e j e c t i o n , or further a r t i c u l a t i o n . These discussion sessions were guided by questions such as " I f students did . . ., would t h i s be evidence that t h i s goal was f u l f i l l e d ? " , "Why i s i t impor-tant that students be able to . . ., or f e e l that . . .?", "Does t h i s goal include a f e e l i n g of ... .?", and so on. In serving h i s role the investigator d i d not pass judgment on e i t h e r the purposes stated or 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 behalf. Nor did he suggest what the purposes of the course should be, or impose b i s own value structure or commonly accepted value structures. 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 thinking on what he_ wanted students to learn, and why he f e l t they should learn i t . In the Physics 110 course, the f i n a l version of the course rationale was the product of a series of interactions between the author, a second investigator working on the evaluation project, and the i n s t r u c t o r . During the s i x week period over which these interactions occurred, four written versions of the course rationale were produced. Appendix A contains the l a s t of these versions. 1(0 3.3.1 Statements wit h i n the Course Rationale r e l a t i n g to Aff e c t i v e Goals Once the course rationale had been delineated to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of both the i n s t r u c t o r and investigator, i t was possible to i d e n t i f y the statements within i t that related t o the a f f e c t i v e goals. These state-ments have been underscored i n the rationale In Appendix A. A study of these statements indicated 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 " . . . to make physics enjoyable and i n t e r e s t i n g to the students". In addition to t h i s very general goal, the i n s t r u c t o r wanted h i s students to be predisposed toward physics as: (1) a powerful way to understand a wide range of natural phenomena, (2) a basis f o r working i n science, technology, and to some extent i n medicine, and (3) an enterprise of society with important, implications f o r human welfare. In h i s discussion of (1), the i n s t r u c t o r indicated he would attempt to expose the structures i n and commonalities among natural phenomena by showing that a few basic laws of physics are s u f f i c i e n t to re l a t e and thereby understand a vast number of experiences. In t h i s respect, he hoped students would f e e l " i n t e l l e c t u a l excitement" at being able to see "the beauty of a l o g i c a l structure i n nature", and that t h i s structure would "demystify" natural phenomena, making many more phenomena under-standable. In discussing (2), the in s t r u c t o r disclosed that he wished students to see that an understanding of the basic p r i n c i p l e s of physics i s needed f o r work i n a diverse variety of s c i e n t i f i c professions. In addition, he wished problem solving to be seen as a valuable and powerful means f o r obtaining an understanding of how physics works. The instructor's 41 discussions of (3) indicated that he wished students to see the r e l a t i o n -ships between science and society 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 of i n t e r e s t , enjoyment, power, need, understanding, importance, etc., that the i n s t r u c t o r indicated he was going to attempt to i n s t i l l , were delineated through verbal discussions between the investigator and i n s t r u c t o r when the SD instrument was const-ructed. This d e t a i l w i l l be described i n Section 3.^.1 which discusses the se l e c t i o n of the SD concepts and scales. In these discussions, as i n the r a t i o n a l e , i t was apparent that the major a f f e c t i v e goals of the course related f i r s t to "making physics enjoyable and i n t e r e s t i n g to students", and then to a s s i s t i n g students to see physics as a "powerful way to understand a wide range of natural phenomena". 3.4 The Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l The basic issues to be considered i n the construction and use of the SD instrument i n the context of the Procedure have been given i n Chapter I I . The following description of the manner i n which (1) an SD instrument was constructed, and (2) the SD data were analyzed i n the Physics 110 course w i l l serve to i l l u s t r a t e the pragmatic aspects of these and more technical issues i n the development and use of the SD instrument. 3.4.1 Selection of Objects and Scales The SD objects selected were those objects toward which a know-ledge of selected a f f e c t i v e responses was important i n planning i n s t r u c -t i o n a l strategies. The term "object" as i t i s employed here i s equivalent 42 to the term "value object" as used by Smith and Meux. As Smith and Meux point out, these (value) objects can be people, events, b e l i e f s , actions, 75 arguments, pr a c t i c e s , states of mind, etc. Two types of 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 consisted of the objects referred to 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 Phenomena. The second type of objects i d e n t i f i e d were those that were close l y r e lated to the f i r s t type, but not mentioned e x p l i c i t l y i n the ratio n a l e . This second type was selected on two bases: (1) the a f f e c t i v e responses toward them were expected to influence strongly the a f f e c t i v e responses to the f i r s t type of objects (re: Fishbein's theory of associated objects — Section 2.2.1), (2) the influence of these a f f e c t i v e responses was believed to be susceptible to change ( i f necessary) through the actions of the course i n s t r u c t o r . The objects of the second type were My Previous Physics Course, My Previous Physics Instructor, and My Expectations Toward Physics 110. Intellectual Excitement was also included as an SD object but had no relevance to the educational problem addressed by the Procedure. This object was included to test an independent hypothesis within the Physics 110 course evaluation study. The scales were selected to represent the a f f e c t i v e responses t o -ward the objects referred to i n the a f f e c t i v e goals. Several of these bip 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 adjectives found i n the discussions of 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 - not interesting, sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting, beautiful - ugly, important -unimportant, valuable - worthless and understandable - mysterious. Others 43 were constructed to capture the essence of a desired a f f e c t i v e response. To determine how "powerful" students f e l t physics was, the scales strong -weak, large - small, and wide - narrow were included. To r e f l e c t the students' a p p l i c a t i o n , understanding or awareness of the structure i n and coirimonality between natural phenomena, the scales oriented toward p r i n c i p l e s - oriented toward f a c t s , r a t i o n a l - miraculous, t h e o r e t i c a l -i n t u i t i v e , and c l a r i f i e s - complicates were included. To explore various facets of how enjoyable the students f e l t physics was- r.he scales always fun -never fun, nice - awful, rewarding - unrewarding, never dull - always d u l l , encouraging - discouraging, and 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 were selected i n addition to those d i r e c t l y constructed from adjectives i n the rati o n a l e . The scales b e n e f i c i a l for society -harmful for society, needed by society - not needed by society, and should be guided by society — should not be guided by society were included to r e f l e c t the students' views on the s o c i e t a l benefits of physics and the accountability of physics to society. These considerations are aspects of the rationale statements that "Physics i s an enterprise of society with important implications f o r human welfare". The scales straight forward -t r i c k y , easy - d i f f i c u l t , challenging - not challenging, together with the previously discussed scales understandable - mysterious, and c l a r i f i e s -complicates were included to determine how comprehensible students saw physics, natural phenomena, and problem solving as being. The i n s t r u c t o r f e l t that students' enjoyment of or Interest i n physics was a function of how comprehensible the students found physics t o be. As discussed i n Chapter I I , several of Osgood's standard scales were also included as a possible aid i n the in t e r p r e t a t i o n of the c l u s t e r -44 ings of 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 established as representative of the evaluative, a c t i v i t y , and potency f a c t o r s , those factors most commonly found i n SD studies, and (2) r e f l e c t e d as closely as possible the a f f e c t i v e responses of concern to the in s t r u c t o r . At least three well-known scales were added to represent each of these dimensions, i f such representative scales were not already present. The scales good - bad, necessary - unnecessary, applicable - not applicable, efficient - inefficient, and meaningful -meaningless were included to give added representation to the evaluative dimension, and the scales passive - active, dead - alive, moving - still, and slow - fast were used to characterize the a c t i v i t y dimension. The potency dimension was already s u f f i c i e n t l y represented by the three scales selected to assess the "power" of physics. The f i n a l form of the SD instrument (Appendix B) consisted.of seven objects, each followed by the same 34 scales. The scales were randomly arranged with respect to both t h e i r p o l a r i t y (whether the po s i t i v e response appeared on the r i g h t or l e f t end of the scale) and t h e i r order of presentation. For the purposes of the Procedure i t was not necessary to have the same set of scales following each concept. This practice was elected however, since i t allowed the responses to d i f f e r e n t objects to be compared i n a common factor (semantic.) space, a method of analysis that was undertaken i n the more general evaluation study of the 77 Physics 110 course. 1 1 3.4.2 Instructions to Students f o r Responding to the SD The SD instrument was administered to the Physics 110 class during 45 the f i r s t class lecture of the year. Printed instructions (Appendix B) for completing the instrument accompanied each student's copy. In addition, these instructions were displayed by an overhead projector and were read verbatim to the class. The instructions given were t y p i c a l of standard SD i n s t r u c t i o n s , designed to (1) indicate the purpose of the instrument, (2) orient students to the manner i n which they should approach the instrument, (3) define the verbal meaning of the seven scale p o s i t i o n s , and (4) allow students to respond and react to a sample exercise. The verbal meanings associated with the seven scale positions have empirically been found to closely approximate a r a t i o scale. The r a t i o scale assumption i s made i n the method of analysing the responses. 3.4.3 Technical Processing of Students' Raw Data Responses The SD Instrument of seven objects and 34 scales was printed on custom designed I.B.M. o p t i c a l scan sheets to permit student responses to be mechanically recorded on computer cards by the I.B.M. 1230 Optical Scanner. The o p t i c a l scanning machine w i l l read and punch data i n a variety of convenient formats, and can be instructed to check the response sheets f o r blanks or multiple responses. This scanning oper-ation i s an accurate and e f f i c i e n t substitute f o r the process of manually key punching responses, and, f o r the most part, 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 to have a student's responses to the 34 scales under each object punched on one data card. Those scan sheets with two objects were therefore processed through the o p t i c a l scanner twice. Each time the responses to only one of the two objects were read and recorded. 46 By v i r t u e of 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 possible responses which correspond to the seven SD scale positions from l e f t to r i g h t were read and recorded on a data card as 2,3,4,0,5,6, or 7- These numbers were l a t e r transformed to the consecutive intergers -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 practice conformed to the r a t i o - s c a l e p r i n c i p l e , and f o r in t e r p r e t i v e purposes associated the "neutral" scale p o s i t i o n with the number "0". 3.4.4 SD Data Analysis The a f f e c t i v e responses of the students to the objects presented 79 were operationally defined i n Section 2.3.2 i n terms of factor scores. For the purposes of the Procedure therefore, the analysis of. the students' responses to the Individual scales had to y i e l d (1) the factor structure of the scales f o r each object and (2) the students' scores on.the factors determined. Once the factors underlying the sets of scales were i d e n t i f i e d , the students' scores on these factors were r e a d i l y obtainable from standard computer programs. The substance of the problem of i d e n t i f y i n g the affec-t i v e responses was t h e _ i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the most meaningfully or i n t e r -pretable factor structure. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h i s structure demanded a study of varying factor structures derived from (1) the application of di f f e r e n t factor a n a l y t i c techniques and models or (2) the selection of dif f e r e n t parameter values within applications of the same technique or model. 47 Oblique as w e l l as orthogonal factor analytic procedures were performed i n the study of the factor structures of the Physics 110 data. The orthogonal procedures were d i s t i n c t l y superior i n defining more mean-i n g f u l factors. The orthogonal procedures performed were p r i n c i p a l comp-onents analysis, p r i n c i p a l axis common factor analysis, and image analysis, a l l followed by varimax ro t a t i o n . These analyses were performed on both cor 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 of the c o r r e l a t i o n matrices, rotated t o the varimax c r i t e r i o n , were found to be most c l e a r l y interpretable. Since the application of factor analytic procedures to SD data i s not the main focus of 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 practice of analyzing SD data by p r i n c i p a l component 80 and varimax analysis, the following discussion of the factor analysis of the SD data w i l l be l i m i t e d to the application of 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 Analysis of SD Data The SD generates a three dimensional array, or cube of data f o r N subjects responding to each of 0 objects on S scales (Pig. 5a). In t h i s application of the SD, approximately 700 students responded to each of seven objects on' a set of 34 scales. For the purpose of i l l u s t r a t i n g the e f f i c a c y of the Procedure, the responses of the f i r s t 200 students l i s t e d alphabetically were used. The responses of the next 200 students l i s t e d alphabetically were also analyzed f o r the purpose of examining the s t a b i l i t y of the scale factor structures over d i f f e r e n t groups. These, groups w i l l be respectively referred to 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 central to the Procedure since i n practice t h i s task i s not l i k e l y to be undertaken by the i n s t r u c -tor. In developing the Procedure however, cross v a l i d a t i o n of "types" could have some supportive value. This task was undertaken by creating two d i f f e r e n t groups through a random d i v i s i o n of 400 students and sub-j e c t i n g these two groups to a Q-analysis. The r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis are reported i n Appendix H. P r i n c i p a l component analysis, l i k e most t r a d i t i o n a l factor analytic 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 to the three dimensional matrix of SD data. Recently, "Three-mode Factor Analysis" has been developed by Tucker as a sol u t i o n of t h i s 8 l problem, but t h i s development was not available to the investigator. As an a l t e r n a t i v e , Miron and Osgood discuss three ways of collapsing one of the dimensions of 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 factor models can be applied. These techniques involve s t r i n g i n g out, summation, or averaging procedures, s t r i n g i n g 82 out being the most consistently employed-in'SD studies. These three techniques and three-mode analysis a l l provide a corrmon scale factor structure. In the present study, two procedures f o r reducing the three dim-ensional array l e d to meaningful factor structures. 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 treated as unique observations or scores even though these observations are based on the repeated use of a set of scales. The second procedure was to analyse the students' responses to the scales under each concept separately, and thereby a r r i v e 50 at a unique scale factor structure f o r each concept. These unique factor structures, 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 to indicate that scale - object i n t e r a c t i o n was existent and i t s effects on the factor structures 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 defining the a f f e c t i v e responses of concern i n t h i s study,'unique factor structures f o r each object would be determined. In addition, 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 to be rotated to the varimax c r i t e r i o n f o r a given concept was to select that number of factors which gave the most meaningful or i n t e r -pretable factors. The most meaningful structure was i d e n t i f i e d by l i s t -I O I _cu_ii xo._.i_w_ , x n u i u c i ' __ n_gi i xou u c wx xi_a.__.ng,, w i u o c _ _ _ x _ o whose factor loadings exceeded .30 i n magnitude. Since i n an orthogonal analysis the proportion of factor variance attributable to a scale i s equal to the square of the scale's factor loading on that factor, judg-ments of meaningful c l u s t e r i n g were based on a study of the most highly loaded scales. Two other commonly used c r i t e r i a f o r determining the number of factors to r e t a i n f o r r o t a t i o n were also used i n the i n i t i a l stages of the analysis of the factor structures. 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 factors to rotate are discussed by Kaiser and 84 also by C a t t e l l . In the f i r s t factor analysis of the scale i n t e r -c o r r e l a t i o n matrices for 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 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00 was employed. From 51 t h i s analysis the eigenvalues were inspected i n order to apply a second c r i t e r i o n — namely r o t a t i n g only those factors. preceding the point at which the r a t i o s of the ordered eigenvalues approach a constant, This point can be determined graphically by p l o t t i n g the eigenvalue as ordinate against the ordinal value of the eigenvalue as abscissa. The c r i t i c a l point on the r e s u l t i n g l i n e beyond which factors should be rejected 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 factors with eigenvalues greater than one was found to be most useful 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 factor structures f o r the concepts. The number of factors rotated f o r each of the seven concepts when this- c r i t e r i o n was . applied was either three, four, or f i v e . The "slope" c r i t e r i o n on the other hand was found to be of 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 t y p i c a l l y about three times larger than the next two, three, or 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 analysis were 6.39, 2.44, 1.-99, 1-62. I f the "slope" c r i t e r i o n had been applied to these values, only one factor might have been retained, defining the SD space as being e s s e n t i a l l y unidimensional. In t h i s study, however, i t was empirically found that upon r o t a t i o n with two or three other factors the variance accounted f o r by t h i s predominant fa c t o r , an evaluative factor, was shared with the additional factors. In addition, the factors generated were with minor exception meaningful clusters of scales. Table 2 depicts the percentage of t o t a l variance accounted for by the three scale factors of the concept "Physics" before and a f t e r 52 r o t a t i o n . These r e s u l t s are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of those obtained f o r the other concepts. A f t e r r o t a t i o n the evaluative factor s t i l l accounted f o r most of the variance, but not overwhelmingly so. T A B L E 2 PERCENTAGE OP TOTAL SCORE VARIANCE ACCOUNTED FOR BY EACH PRINCIPAL COMPONENT AND VARIMAX SCALE FACTOR OF THE OBJECT "PHYSICS" Percentage of Variance Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 P r i n c i p a l Components 1 8 . 8 2 7 . 1 9 5 - 8 6 Varimax Factors 1 3 . 6 8 9 . 6 8 8 . 5 2 (evaluation) (potency) (comprehension) The resultant number of factors derived by sel e c t i n g f o r each object independently that number of factors which provided the most meaningful factor structure i s depicted i n Table 3. Three objects had three scale factors, and four objects had four scale factors. Factor scores were calculated f o r each student on each of these scale factors. For each of the objects My Previous Physics Instructor and My Previous Physics Course one of the four scale factors did not represent a mean-i n g f u l c l u s t e r of scales. The scores on these two factors were omitted from further analysis. A t o t a l of 23 factor scores remained f o r each student. 5 3 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 Other Physics 13.68 9.68 8.52 Problem Solving 12.10 (E1)» 12.08 (E2) 9.07 7.11 Natural Phenomena 7-36 (E 2) 9-91 ( E ^ 10.27 7,39 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 Instructor 36.63 . 8 . 2 8 8.19 4.11 My Expectations Toward Physics 110 21 .91 10.93 12.36 - Importance E_ = Interest 3.4.6 Interpretation of the Scale Factors While the contribution of scales to factors varied i n t e r n a l l y w i t h i n each factor from object to object, the factor structures 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 factor. The potency scales large - small, strong - weak, and wide - narrow were t y p i c a l l y the highest loading scales, with the a c t i v i t y scales moving - s t i l l , alive - dead, active - passive, and fast - slow making a notable but secondary contribution. For each object there was a factor which s h a l l be termed a comprehensibility f a c t o r , characterized by the scales understandable - mysterious, easy -difficult, straight forward - tricky, rational - miraculous, and clarifies -complicates. A l l objects had at least one evaluative factor with the exception of Problem Solving and Natural Phenomena which had two evaluative factors. For Problem Solving the evaluative factor s p l i t i n t o a general importance evaluative factor and interest or enjoyment evaluative factor. The general importance evaluative factor was distinguished by the scales important - unimportant, valuable - worthless, necessary - unnecessary, needed by society - not needed by society, beneficial for society - harmful for society, etc. The i n t e r e s t evaluative factor was defined by the scales interesting.- not interesting, sometimes intellectually exciting -never intellectually exciting, always fun - never fun, and never dull -always dull. Natural Phenomena had a s i m i l a r interest evaluative factor highlighted by the scales interesting - not interesting, and sometimes intel-lectually exciting - never intellectually exciting. The second evaluative factor under Natural Phenomena can best be characterized as a s o c i e t a l evaluation f a c t o r , distinguished by the scales beneficial for society -55 harmful for society, valuable - worthless, good - bad, and needed by society - not needed by society. The single evaluative factor associated with the remaining f i v e objects was simply a combination of the scales within the general importance, s o c i e t a l or interest evaluation factors. As previously mentioned, the evaluative f a c t o r , or combination of evaluative factors where there were'two, accounted f o r more t o t a l score variance than any other factor. With two exceptions, the potency - a c t i v i t y factor 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 of the evaluative factor was a re s u l t of the large number of evaluative scales on the SD which i n turn r e f l e c t e d the instructor's great concern over students' evaluative responses toward • physics, problem solving and natural phenomena. 3.4.7 Relationships 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 to a p r i n c i p a l component analysis. The three varimax factors i d e n t i f i e d and displayed i n Table 4 c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e that the same af f e c t i v e responses to d i f f e r e n t objects had high c o r r e l a t i o n co-e f f i c i e n t s ( i . e . , f actor loadings) with the same factor. Alternately stated, students' responses on the underlying dimensions of comprehen-s i b i l i t y , potency, and evaluation across objects were not independent. Factor I i n Table 4 i l l u s t r a t e s that the students' scores on the compre-h e n s i b i l i t y dimension across objects were quite highly related. Factors I I and I I I respectively I l l u s t r a t e the same relationship to e x i s t f o r scores on the potency and evaluative dimensions. These findings are most consistent with the pred i c t i o n of Fishbein's theory that the af f e c -56 TABLE 4 VARIMAX FACTOR STRUCTURE OF AFFECTIVE RATINGS* Loadings ' Object Af f e c t i v e Response FACTOR I .829 Physics Comprehensibility .769 My Previous Physics Course Comprehensibility .738 Problem Solving Comprehensibility .679 My Expectations toward Physics 110 Comprehensibility .614 My Previous Physics Instructor Comprehensibility .491 Natural Phenomena Comprehensibility .341 I n t e l l e c t u a l Excitement Comprehensibility FACTOR I I .760 Problem Solving Potency .742 Physics Potency .711 My Expectations toward Physics 110 Potency .660 Natural Phenomena Potency .653 I n t e l l e c t u a l Excitement Potency .619 My Previous Physics Course Potency .349 My Previous Physics Instructor Potency FACTOR I I I .807 Physics Evaluation .758 My Previous Physics Course Evaluation .616 My Expectations toward Physics 110 Evaluation .590 My Previous Physics Instructor Evaluation .540 Problem Solving Evaluation (Importance) .369 Problem Solving Evaluation (Interest) * The af f e c t i v e ratings "Natural Phenomena are i n t e r e s t i n g " and "Natural Phenomena are important" and the ratings of i n t e l l e c t u a l excitement on the evaluative dimension did not possess s i g n i f i c a n t loadings on these factors. 57 t i v e ratings given closely associated objects w i l l themselves be related. While not suggesting causal r e l a t i o n s h i p s , these findings do point out that students possess s i m i l a r feelings toward the objects referred to i n the a f f e c t i v e goals (physics, problem solving and natural phenomena) and the i n s t r u c t i o n a l or related variables (My Previous Physics Course, My Previous Physics Instructor, and My -Expectations Toward Physics 110). 3.4.8 Selection of Aff e c t i v e Responses f o r the P r o f i l e Analysis Of the 23 a f f e c t i v e responses obtained, nine were retained to define the p r o f i l e s upon which s i m i l a r "types" of students were i d e n t i f i e d . Preliminary p r o f i l e analyses employing 15 or 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 to the large numbers of variables that had to be taken i n t o account. For the purposes of i l l u s t r a t i n g the Procedure i t was therefore decided to reduce the member-ship on the p r o f i l e s to only those scores which r e f l e c t the students' incoming status on the a f f e c t i v e ratings referred to i n the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course. On t h i s basis, 14 a f f e c t i v e scores were omitted from the p r o f i l e analysis. Their omission i s ad d i t i o n a l l y supported by the following considerations: .1. A f f e c t i v e ratings which were meaningful but unrelated to the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course were created by asking students to respond to the same set of 34 scales under each SD object. For example, while a f f e c t i v e scores r e l a t i n g to the importance and potency of natural phenomena were obtained, these ratings 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 intellectual Excitement were not pertinent to the goals of the course. The rat i o n a l e f o r including intel-lectual Excitement as an SD object i s given i n Section 3 . 4 . 1 . 3. A f fective responses toward the "related" objects,, were found i n Section 3 . 4 . 7 to be closely related to the a f f e c t i v e responses to the objects referred to i n the a f f e c t i v e goals, and hence, provide l i t t l e a d d i t i o n a l information about the students. The above considerations support the omission of ce r t a i n affec-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 retention of the nine remaining a f f e c t i v e scores was based upon the independent judgment of the author, a physics teacher, and. a. p h y s i c i s t that these a f f e c t i v e responses were d i r e c t l y relevant to the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course.. The instructions given to the physics teacher and phy s i c i s t are i n Appendix I . The nine a f f e c t i v e ratings used f o r defining the students p r o f i l e s were: 1. Evaluation of (importance of and int e r e s t in) physics . 2 . Potency of physics 3. Comprehension of physics 4. Evaluation (importance) of problem solving 5. Comprehension of problem solving 6. Potency of problem solving 7. Evaluation of (interest in) problem solving 59 . . 8. Comprehension of natural phenomena 9. Evaluation of (interest in) natural phenomena Consistent with Osgood's analysis of SD data, the terms "evaluation", "potency", and "comprehension" were selected each to characterize a psychological dimension underlying a set of closely related scales. The scale composition of each of these dimensions i s displayed i n Appendix C. 3.4.9 The Effects of the Number of P r o f i l e Variables on the I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Student Types The number of 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 of clusters 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 of n variables f o r N subjects, and n i s less than N, then the maximum number of factors that can be i d e n t i f i e d i s one less than the number of variables on the p r o f i l e s , or n-1. The algebraic basis f o r t h i s r e s u l t i s given i n Appendix P. This constraint created by a small number of variables 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 at hand where 200 (N) subjects are being clustered on the basis of nine (n) variables. A maximum of eight clusters of subjects can therefore be defined, which creates the danger that these clusters may i n fact be an a r t i f a c t of the constraint, and not a set of eight groups of persons who are highly s i m i l a r on a l l of the relevant a f f e c t i v e variables. I t i s necessary therefore that .evidence be gathered supporting the s i m i l a r i t y of the p r o f i l e s within each cluste r . 60 3.5 Q-Analysis of the P r o f i l e s of Affective Scores The p r o f i l e s of the nine a f f e c t i v e scores f o r the 200 students i n Group A were subjected to a Q-analysis through the application of Guertin's p r o f i l e analysis program. This program f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d the types of students wi t h i n Group A In terms of t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y of p r o f i l e s of a f f e c t i v e responses, and then it.provided indices 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 of students to the types i d e n t i f i e d . These indices were the geometric distances (d) between a student's p r o f i l e and the modal pattern of each type. 3.5.1 The P r o f i l e Analysis Computer Program Guertin's p r o f i l e analysis program i s contained and described i n Appendix E. Table 7 i n Appendix E summarizes the information provided i n the form of printed output from the program. The program i s a s e l f •contained package i n the sense that a l l procedures within t h i s program, including decisions regarding the number of factors to extract or rotate, are e s s e n t i a l l y not controllable by the user. 3.5.2 Modifications of the P r o f i l e Analysis Program Technical modifications of the p r o f i l e analysis program were undertaken to permit the user to suppress the p r i n t i n g of the c o r r e l -ation matrix i f i t was not required (since i t could be a 200 x 200 cor r e l a t i o n matrix), or terminate the execution of the program at selected stages of the p r o f i l e analysis. These modifications, j u s t i f i e d on a monetary basis, were of unquestionable value, since the p r o f i l e 61 analysis of the Physics 110 data required multiple runs of t h i s program on the same data. Substantive modifications of the p r o f i l e analysis program were undertaken by the investigator i n an e f f o r t to give the user more control over the number of factors to be rotated i n the i n i t i a l f a c t o r i n g of the cor r e l a t i o n matrix and i n each d-analysis of the shape factors. The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the need of t h i s control was empirically based. For d i f f e r e n t sets of data the number of factors rotated at each stage by the unmodified program were consistently found to be f a r i n excess of the number that would have been rotated on the basis of the "slope" c r i t e r i o n discussed i n the context of the SD data analysis. I t was there-fore suspected that some meaningless, or "chance" factors were being i n -cluded i n the analysis. In addition, the consequent large number of 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 to cope with i n the pedagogical context of the Procedure. In the unmodified program, the number of factors rotated at each stage of the program was controlled by c r i t e r i a i n t e r n a l to the program. The only control the user had over these c r i t e r i a was through his s e l e c t i o n of the value of a single parameter. However the value of t h i s parameter also served a second important r o l e of determining the c r i t e r i o n value f o r factor loadings below which p r o f i l e s would not be included i n the d-analysis procedures. Higher values of the parameter served to increase the number of varimax shape factors but at the same time reduced the number of p r o f i l e s , included i n the d-analysis of the. shape factors. A procedure was established that allowed the user three a l t e r -62 natives to c o n t r o l l i n g the number of factors rotated. The user could (1) l e t the program control the number of factors rotated at each stage of the analysis, (2) specify the number of factors of the cor r e l a t i o n matrix that were to be rotated, and l e t the program control the number of factors to be rotated i n each d-analysis, or (3) specify the number of factors to be rotated at each stage i n the program. 3.5.3 The Use of the Modified Program The second and t h i r d alternatives described above were employed i n the analysis of the Physics 110 Group A data. This process i s des-cribed i n point form i n Appendix G. A series of three consecutive runs of the p r o f i l e analysis program was needed. The parameters set i n the second and t h i r d runs were dependent upon the magnitude of the eigen-values respectively derived from the f i r s t and second runs. Hie purpose of the f i r s t run of the program was to determine the eigenvalues of the co r r e l a t i o n matrix. To terminate the execution of the program a f t e r these data were produced, the second alter n a t i v e was employed and the program was instructed to rotate no factors from the corr e l a t i o n matrix. No varimax shape factors were produced and con-sequently no d-analyses were possible. The program was then run a second time and the second alter n a t i v e was again employed. This time the program was instructed to rotate that number of shape factors selected through application of the slope c r i t e r i o n to the eigenvalues of the corr e l a t i o n matrix. The program was also instructed not to 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 fa c t o r s , and also a d-analysis of each of these factors. The eigen-63 values In the d-analyses could then be studied, again i n terms of the slope c r i t e r i o n , to determine how many factors to rotate i n each d-analysis. 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 , specifying the number of factors to 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 Analysis of Group A • Several p r o f i l e analyses exploring the effects of including d i f f e r e n t numbers of variables, r o t a t i n g d i f f e r e n t numbers of factors, and defining d i f f e r e n t factor loading cutoffs were performed on Group A before the f i n a l set of modal patterns selected to 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 with nine variables d i f f e r e d only through s e t t i n g the parameter f o r factor loading cutoff f o r shape family membership at .50 and .55. Within the • three stage, modified p r o f i l e analysis procedure outlined i n the previous section, the value of t h i s parameter no longer d i r e c t l y controlled the number of factors rotated, but i t could change the eigenvalues i n the d-analyses by increasing or decreasing membership i n the shape famil i e s . These changes i n eigenvalues may i n turn influence decisions on the number of factors to rotate i n the d-analyses of the shape f a m i l i e s . This was not the case with Group A data for which a predominant single f a c t o r was produced i n a l l shape families f o r f a c t o r loading cutoffs of .50 and .55. A factor loading cutoff of .50 f o r shape family membership was selected f o r the f i n a l analysis which i d e n t i f i e d the modal patterns selected to represent the students i n Group A. In t h i s a n a l y s i s , 191 of 64 200 students were c l a s s i f i e d i n 16 categories, whereas f o r a fac t o r loading cutoff of .55, only 169 students were c l a s s i f i e d i n 16 categories. Selecting the lower of the factor loading cutoffs destroyed the uniqueness of 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 several students i n more than one shape family. For a factor loading cutoff of .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 cutoff of .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 serious problem however since i n practice the 62 students i n question can be sorted and c l a s s i f i e d by associating each student with that shape family displaying the smaller "d" value between i t s modal pattern and the student's p r o f i l e . These values are provided by Guertin's program. A study of 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 to deviate widely i n l e v e l and dispersion. These p r o f i l e s would have been accounted for i f more than one factor had been retained i n each of the shape families = The eigenvalues of the matrix of correlations 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 clear break i n the descending pattern of these eight eigenvalues. The corresponding eight factors representing 99^0% of the variance i n students over t h e i r a f f e c t i v e scores were therefore rotated to the varimax c r i t e r i o n . From each of these eight shape factors two shape families of p r o f i l e s were extracted. These shape familie s were respectively composed of p r o f i l e s which loaded higher than +.50 or lower than -.50 on each shape factor. The eigenvalues of the s i m i l a r i t y matrix $ of each of these shape families are also l i s t e d i n Table 5. Each set of eigenvalues appears to describe a unidimensional structure. The factor loadings on the f i r s t 65 TAELE 5 EIGENVALUES OP THE CORRELATION AND SIMTiARTTY MATRICES Matrices • Eigenvalues n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Correlation Matrix a 200 43.69 39.41 '26.51 22.91 21.18 18.04 14.34 12.79 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 S i m i l a r i t y 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 S i m i l a r i t y 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 0.04 ^ i g h t eigenvalues were reported from the co r r e l a t i o n a l analysis. The corresponding p r i n c i p a l axis factors accounted f o r 99 .40$ of the t o t a l v a r i a t i o n of scores on the 200 p r o f i l e s . p r i n c i p a l axis f o r each shape family average approximately .80. The members of the shape families d i d not therefore appear distinguishable on the basis of differences i n the l e v e l or dispersion of t h e i r p r o f i l e s of scores. To check the v a l i d i t y of the observation regarding the unidimen-s 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 rotated with one or more addi t i o n a l axes (the number defined by the eigenvalue; greater than one c r i t e r i o n ) . These analyses d i d spread the variance of the f i r s t a x i s , but i t s main ef f e c t was to produce p r o f i l e loadings i n the range .50 to .60 on each axis rotated, as compared to loadings i n the range .60 to .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 therefore rep-resentative of independent clusters of 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 respectively depict numerically and then graphically the modal patterns f o r the types of 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 factor are superimposed to point out the l o g i c a l l y opposite character of 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 relationships 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 highly p o s i t i v e or highly negative. For example, modal pattern no. 2 represents a group of students whose evaluative response toward physics i s highly p o s i t i v e . In addition, t h e i r evaluative responses toward problem solving and natural phenomena are also p o s i t i v e . 89 fD g M & c t fD 3 co fD 3 co fD & ct tr CD c+ g->-+> fD • CO s: ct tr M 3-fD P O tr CO fD >-b P O ct O 4 CD CD -J-^ l CJ\CT\ VJ1VJ1 4-rJ-r C O C O fV) hJ M h-1 I—* I—1 1—* I—1 CT \ co vj i^q 4 _ - a \ co VJI M I—1 M ro t M C O oro U J H fD CO o o fD co fD co ct I I I I I I I g O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O C _ ro x r M ro V J I J _ ro C A -cr M covji ro co o M O h - 1 (V) PO CA VD -Cr C O C O -CrCO —q—J _ _ p- I I I I I I I I I N O O O O O O O O O O O O H O O H fD P- -Cr-O C A O C O M M M C O C O O A VJI -CrCO CA rO V D o M VJI oo—-J C A C O ro ro C A M - t r VJI ro >^ p O I I I I I I I I I ct M M O O O O O O O O O O M O O O o • • • 4 M O l\) H I—1 VO CO M CO -Cr r\J M -Cr c o v a -CrVO IV) CA O VJ1 -Cr CO VO VO M M —-J VO CO ro CO o o fD I I I I I I I co o o r o o O O M M O O O O O M O O VJI O - C r M -CrCO M C A O - O M O CA O O M M vo C A C O u i vo o r o vo ro ro —q ro ro C A H I I I I I I O O O O M O O O O O O O O O M O 0 0 M VJI M CA C O O O O -Cr VJI C O -Cr O O VO V D V O VJI "~^ 3 -CrVO M C A O W ro CA O M -Cr -Cr I I I I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O M v j i r o v o u j M M C A ro CA-< I vo-cr r o M o- t r r o u j - < i v o ro —q -<i M ro V O VJI M V J I C O 1 I I I I l 0 0 r o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ro co p w - o o M co C O M vo—d C A o r o o C O M r o v o C O M co vo C A — . ro VJI C O C A M M I I I I I I I I O M O O M O O O O O O O O O O O -Cr O M ro C O VJI O CO VO CA -CrCA O VO CA-Cr COrO V O M V O V O -Cr CA -<] CO COVJ1 O O O V J J C O 1 I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O . O O O O M V J I C A C A C A C A o o r v i M VJI -tr ro -—a c o r o V O - C r - J O o v o oo ro o o c o c o V O -<I V J 1 M Er3-£ fD O fD 4 4 ^ $ g P o 3, d- Q_ & ct p fD fD M 4 g : Evaluation Potency Comprehens-i b i l i t y Evaluation (Importance) Comprehens-i b i l i t y Potency Evaluation (Interest) Comprehens-i b i l i t y Evaluation (Interest) co M O CO 8-M fD 3 CO o ,3 M TJ tr fD p CO o 0 0 I 51 CO CA PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING NATURAL PHENOMENA sn o O C 0 -P o PH >> -P •H rH •H £) •H W SH CD -c CD SH O o >3 •p •H rH •H X3 •H CO C CD 4-1 CD SH ! o o c CD •P . O PH •H CD -P in Ctf CD 3 -P C H •a > • >5 •P •H rH •H CO SH CD XI 8 o O CO •H CD -P SH Cd CD P .-P - 2 - . 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 in Group 1 and Group 9-PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING NATURAL PHENOMENA -1 --2 -Pattern No. 2 No. of P r o f i l e s Represented 19 3 = .26 — — Pattern No. 10 No. of P r o f i l e s Represented 13 d = ..32 P i g . 6b.—Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 2 and Group 10. PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING NATURAL PHENOMENA >5 •P •H rH •H £2 •H c CO o C •H ' CD -p .C CO o CD C PH rH CD Q , -P fa > O o PH o >s -P •H rH *—* •H CD .Q O •H c q CO o c3 C •H •p CD -P u x: o re al mp > ^ —s o u G CD -P O P-r C -P O CO •H CD -P U eg CD -P •H H •H £2 •H CO C 8 o o -p ra CD 2 -1 -A \ -1 - 4 \ -2 -Pattern No. 3 No. of P r o f i l e s Represented 32 d = .19 Pattern No. 11 No. of P r o f i l e s Represented 21 d = .43 Pig. 6c.—Modal Patterns Representing Students In Group 3 and Group 11. PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING NATURAL PHENOMENA o •H -p cd >5 o C 0 - P o P-l >s - P •H rH •H fl CO C CD 4-1 0 ?H o o g •H 0 o o • P •H rH •H 42 •H CO C 0 t O o C O CO •H 0 - P H O C cd 0 3 - P 0 rH iH - P Cti H o > —' PH p i •H rH •H fl co C 0 4H 0 O O C - P O CO •H 0 - P EH Cd 0 rH C Cd H 2 -v---1 -2 -Pattern No. 4 No. of P r o f i l e s Represented 11 d = .23 Pattern No. 12 No. of P r o f i l e s Represented 8 3= .14 Pig. 6d.—Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 4 and Group 12. PHYSICS PROEIEM SOLVING NATURAL PHENOMENA o •H • s >s O C CD -P O PL, >5 P J3 •H co C CD g o O >» P •H iH •H CO c CD .C CD 5H O O >5 o C CD P O C P O CO •H CD •B ^  n3 <D d c ctj H >3 P •H rH •H co C CD £ CD O O C P O CO c_ CD 3 -P > ^ 2 -1 -—a u> -1 --2 Pattern No. 5 No. of P r o f i l e s Represented 15 d = .30 Pattern No. 13 No. of P r o f i l e s Represented 10 d = .20 Pig. 6e.—Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 5 and Group 13. PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING NATURAL PHENOMENA •H ^ -H -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 in Group 6 and Group 14. PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING NATURAL PHENOMENA Pattern No. 7 No. of P r o f i l e s Represented 12 d = .18 — — Pattern No. 15 No. of P r o f i l e s Represented 6 d = .24 Fi g . 6 g .—Modal Patterns Representing Students i n Group 7 and Group 15. PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING NATURAL PHENOMENA g •H H o C CD 4-5 >3 -P •H rH •H fl CO C CD XI CD O O >> 4-> •H rH S N •rH CD X> O •rH to . o a s-g he >J Cti O CD o P Q* U c rH Eq Q, CD Cti H 4^> > ^ o O o PH C 43 O CA •H CD 4J Crt CD 3 4^> >> 4^> •rH rH •rl fl to C CD XI CD Sn O o C -P o to •H CD 4J SH C« CD P -P d c ra H >• — w 2' -0 -2 -Pattern No. 8 No. of P r o f i l e s Represented 10 d = . 22 — — Pattern No. 16 No. of P r o f i l e s Represented 12 d = .24 Pig. 6h .—Modal Patterns Representing•Students i n Group 8 and Group 16. The purpose of applying the Q-analysis was (1) to i d e n t i f y groups of students whose antecedent responses were s i m i l a r and (2) to obtain a description of each of these groups i n terms of t h e i r a f f e c t i v e responses. I t was the hypothesis of t h i s study that these descriptions would provide a more objective basis f o r meeting the problem of se l e c t i n g teaching strategies f o r each group directed 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 to the se l e c t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies 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 with the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course. I t 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 of each d i f f e r e n t type. Accordingly, f o r the purposes of se l e c t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies the types of 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 displaying greatest incongruity with the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course. 3.6 The Selection of Strategies Sixteen types of students have been i d e n t i f i e d i n Group A and on the basis 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 objects displaying greatest incongruity with the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course. The f i n a l step i n the Procedure i s to select those strategies which w i l l best remove these incongruities. The resources used to guide the selection of these strategies are des-cribed i n Section 2.3.4. For i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes, strategies w i l l now be selected f o r the groups of students represented by modal patterns 1 and 9. These groups w i l l be referred to as Group 1 and Group 9 and 77 were selected because they are somewhat opposite i n nature. As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Pig. 7a and F i g . 7b the strategies (S. .) or groups of moves w i l l be defined i n terms of the s i x teaching functions to be served i n f u l f i l l i n g an evaluative venture, as delineated by Coombs and Meux. The subscript ( i ) depicts the teaching function number, and ( j ) depicts the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g of concern. " For Group 1 and Group 9, the strategies w i l l be selected to provide students with a r a t i o n a l basis f o r changing those antecedent affec-t i v e responses (R.) toward objects displaying greatest incongruity with the Physics 110 a f f e c t i v e course goals. In Figs. 7a and 7b these a f f e c -t i v e ratings R^  are c i r c l e d and the corresponding strategies S^. are boxed i n . I t should be restated that the Physics 110 course Instructor d i d not possess the description of the "types" i d e n t i f i e d by the Procedure. I f he had been given these descriptions, 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 to be given to 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 follows are suggestions f o r strategies and selected samples of strategies that an i n s t r u c t o r might have selected through the guidance of the resources described i n Section 2.3.4. 3.6.1 Description of Group 1 and Group 9 Group 1 In terms of t h e i r responses on the SD scales, and the relevance of these responses to the a f f e c t i v e ratings inherent i n the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course, these students can be characterized as seeing physics as potent — "a powerful (strong, large, wide) way to 78 Modal Pattern No. 1 Legend E = evaluation Ej = importance E2 = interest C: comprehensibility P: potency Strategies An i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategy (Sjj) i s a set of moves made by the teacher, student, or both, which serves a given teaching function (I through V I ) . Af f e c t i v e Ratings R i to be Addressed through Instruction I I I I I IV R, R, R, R, R. 7 ! R R V VI Sxl s s M l S JVI S VI S Wl SI,2. S H 2 • S V 2 SV2 SVI2 S I 3 " S H 3 - Sm3 SV3 SV3 SVI3 SL4 • SJT4 Sm4 SJV4 SV4 SVI4 S1.5 SXT5 Sms SJV5 SV5 ' V s SX6 SXT6 sm6 SJT/6 SV6 SVI6 S j 7 . SXf 7 s ma- SJV7 SV7 SVJ7 SZ8 Sxrs S J U 8 SW8 SV8 S V I 8 . SX9 SXT9 Sm9 SIV9 SV9 s '„ VI9 P i g . 7a.—The negative A f f e c t i v e Ratings and Required Instructional Strategies i d e n t i f i e d by Modal Pattern 1. Modal Pattern No. 9 Legend E = evaluation E_ = importance E2 - interest S: comprehensibility P: potency Strategies An i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategy ( S i j ) i s a set.of moves made by the teacher, student, or both, which serves a given teaching function (I through VI). A f f e c t i v e Ratings R_ to be Addressed through Instruction I I I I I I IV V VI S x i S x r i S _ I S 7 l S 7 _ I S _ 2 S JJ/2 SV2 S 7 J 2 s s s S - s , s _ I 3 . JJ 3 m 3 IV 3 713 SI4 SX4 SI/4 S r /4 S 7T4 S I 5 S Z T 5 S I 7 5 S 7 5 S 7 J 5 S _ 6 . _2T6 S I7 6 S 7 6 S 7 J 6 s _ s „ s s _ s _ s -J 7 Jf 7 m 7 • 17 7 77 7J7 SI8 S i 7 a S 7 . S 7 J 8 SI9 5 IT 9 S _7 9 S 7 9 - S 7 J 9 R. R, R, R R-R, R„ Fig. 7b. —The negative A f f e c t i v e Ratings and Required Instructional Strategies i d e n t i f i e d by Modal Pattern 9. understand a wide range of natural phenomena" — yet incomprehensible ( d i f f i c u l t , t r i c k y , mysterious, complicating). In addition, these students f e l t problem solving was potent — "a powerful means of obtaining an understanding of how physics works" — but again incomprehensible as w e l l . To a lesser degree natural phenomena were also f e l t to be incomp-rehensible, and not in t e r e s t i n g . The evaluative responses of interest and importance pertaining to physics and problem solving were e s s e n t i a l l y neutral. The main a f f e c t i v e teaching functions to be served f o r t h i s group of students i s to provide them with a r a t i o n a l basis f o r changing their* unfavourable responses to physics, problem solving, and natural phenomena on the comprehensibility scales to more p o s i t i v e responses, and to change t h e i r r a t i n g of natural phenomena on the interest scales to the po s i t i v e end of these scales. In terms of F i g . "a, the intent i s to change these ratings to: R^ : Physics Is comprehensible •  R_: Problem-Solving i s comprehensibie b RQ: Natural Phenomena are comprehensible o R : Natural Phenomena are i n t e r e s t i n g Group 9 These students, somewhat opposite i n nature to those i n Group 1, perceived physics, problem solving, and natural phenomena to be comprehensible (understandable, straight forward, easy, c l a r i f y i n g ) yet they f e l t problem solving and physics to be impotent. That i s , they d i d not f e e l physics was "a powerful way to understand a wide range of natural phenomena", nor di d they see problem solving as "a powerful means f o r 81 obtaining an understanding of how physics works". Like the students i n Group 1, t h e i r evaluative responses to Physics and Problem Solving were e s s e n t i a l l y neutral. The main a f f e c t i v e teaching functions to be served f o r t h i s group of students i s to provide them with a r a t i o n a l basis f o r changing t h e i r unfavourable responses to physics and problem solving on the potency scales to more po s i t i v e responses, r e f l e c t i n g acceptance of the state-ments : 1. Physics i s a powerful way to understand a wide range of natural phenomena. 2. Problem Solving i s a powerful means f o r obtaining an understanding of how physics works. In F i g . 7b, these statements are i d e n t i f i e d as R_ and Rg. 3.6.2 Sample Teaching Strategies 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 ratings R , R , Rfi and R_ as requiring s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l attention through the associated sets of strategies S... Hie following discussion w i l l present sample strategies and t h e i r rationale i n terms of the teaching functions they address. Value Statement R?: Physics i s Comprehensible S : Strategies 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 lecture s e t t i n g during a d i s -cussion of the objectives of the course. Below i s a sample strategy. For purposes of discussing t h i s strategy the sentences within i t are numbered. 82 (1) One of the important goals of t h i s course i s that you come to see physics as comprehensible. (2) By t h i s I mean that you w i l l see the physics you encounter In t h i s course as understandable or straight forward — that 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 pursuit to explain the natural phenomena we observe. (3) At the end of t h i s introductory course your personal comprehension of the f i e l d of physics w i l l of course be l i m i t e d , but hopefully your experience i n t h i s course w i l l leave you with the f e e l i n g that physics i s i n fact comprehensible, that i t i s not i n any way myster-ious, t r i c k y , d i f f i c u l t , or complicating. This strategy i s a combination of several 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 explicate the value term (I.e., "comprehensible" means understandable or straight 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 to explain the natural phenomena we observe). Sent-ence (3) i s a move which again explicates the value term ( i . e . , "comp-rehensible" means not mysterious, not t r i c k y , not d i f f i c u l t , and not complicating). S_._: Strategies f o r Assembling Purported Facts The i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies which assemble facts relevant to the value statement w i l l take place throughout the course and w i l l be a part of the sp e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l treatment given to Group 1. This i n s t r u c t i o n would therefore 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" must be based on facts relevant to the "comprehensibility" of physics. Sample facts a 83 student could bring to bear on t h i s issue are: 1. The instructor's displayed understanding of a sample of physics laws, p r i n c i p l e s , and methods and h i s ease i n applying these to explain natural physical events. 2. The student's experience .in a c tually 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 his ease i n applying these to explain selected natural physical events. 3. The o r i g i n s , causes, or reasons f o r the science of physics i n terms of the s o c i e t a l or personal need to understand natural 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 to other groups, could: 1. Present only a "core" group of laws, p r i n c i p l e s , and methods. 2. Purposefully select explanations and derivations of an algebraic nature i n which the l o g i c of the methods of physics i s displayed and i l l u s t r a t e d through examples which are selected 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 to the explanation of natural phenomena with which students are f a m i l i a r , with 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 within physics which display man's e f f o r t s i n the past to understand the physical phenomena he observed, and provide a comparison of how these phenomena looked to man p r i o r to the explanations offered by physics. 5. Pursue diagnostic questioning of exercises which • probe and i d e n t i f y the mysterious, or t r i c k y aspects of 1, 2, 3 3 and 4 and provide a basis f o r remedial strategies to be defined. In Smith and Meux's terms, these strategies within the t u t o r i a l s would often begin with an "instance description" 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 evaluation" move the i n s t r u c t o r and students could then explore the comprehensibility of t h i s instance, or they could " i d e n t i f y the r e l a t i o n a l properties" of t h i s instance — f o r example, the consequences of this•instance 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 also 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 to the explanation offered by physics. Sm3' Strategies f o r Assessing the Truth of Purported Facts Since i t i s prima r i l y the experience of the student which provides the facts about the comprehensibility of physics, f o r the most part the sample strategies suggested above are also concerned with the v e r i f i c a t i o n of these facts. I t i s the student's experience which t e l l s him "Yes, my in s t r u c t o r finds physics understandable and straight forward", or 85 "Yes, I have been able to solve a l l these problems dealing with the r e f r a c t i o n of l i g h t . " , or "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 of why the moon rotated about the earth." S Strategies f o r C l a r i f y i n g the Relevance of Facts In t h i s instance the relevance of facts such as those given above to the value judgment being made appears obvious, since the facts a l l relate to physics and have clear p o s i t i v e or negative valence with res-pect to the r a t i n g of the comprehensibility of physics. Sy,-: Strategies f o r A r r i v i n g at a Tentative Value Decision 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 of the preceding four tasks. The instructor's primary r o l e therefore i s to provide the student with the appropriate set' of experiences (facts) which re l a t e to the students judgment of the comprehensibility of physics. S^..: Strategies f o r Testing the Value P r i n c i p l e Implied i n the Decision In.terms of the facts offered i n support of the students' judgment of the comprehensibility of physics, the value p r i n c i p l e underlying t h i s judgment might be "Something i s comprehensible i f I understand i t and my in s t r u c t o r understands_it." In the 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 to the acc e p t a b i l i t y of t h i s value p r i n c i p l e . Rather, i n s t r u c t i o n throughout the course would continually be devoted to the accumulation of facts (student experiences) relevant to the value judgment derived through the application of the value p r i n -c i p l e . 86 In general i t appears that 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 of facts which are relevant to the value judgments. In addition, these tasks of i d e n t i f y i n g and v e r i f y i n g facts appear to be f u l f i l l e d simultaneously rather than separately or sequentially. This i s f e l t to be true since the facts relevant to the value judgments i n ques-t i o n are based on the student's own experience. Also, the value judg-ments i n question are s p e c i f i c i n nature and hence have few facts r e l e -vant to them. In view of these observations, remaining examples of strategies 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 ver-i f i c a t i o n of f a c t s . Value Statement R 5 : Problem Solving i s Comprehensible Value Statement Rg: Natural Phenomena are Comprehensible The i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies addressing these value judgments would overlap considerably with those addressing "Physics i s comprehen-s i b l e " . Not only i s the value term the same, but the value objects are highly related. The moves selected to f u l f i l l the teaching function " 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 include moves which (1) i d e n t i f y the value object and value terms, (2) describe the value object, and (3) explicate the value term. The facts the student brings to h i s decision regarding the comprehensibility of problem solving w i l l be mainly based on h i s own experience — how understandable, easy, and straight forward he found the sample of problem solving situations experienced i n the course, and the instructor's displayed understanding of these s i t u a t i o n s . The sp e c i a l 87 i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis (S_ ) providing these facts should again focus XT 5 on the enhancement of the students' understanding of problem solving and might involve (1) diagnostic e f f o r t s on the part of the i n s t r u c t o r to 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 , or mysterious aspects of problem solving, (2) a slower pace with more time devoted to the analysis of a given problem solving instance, and-(3) the sel e c t i o n of problem solutions which act as exemplars of problem solving methods generalizable to other problem situat i o n s . Similar considerations e x i s t i n the students' judgment of the comprehensibility of natural phenomena. Special i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies (S ) might emphasize the application of physics to the. explanation of. XT 8 some common, previously incomprehensible aspects of natural phenomena — what causes rainbows or colors i n soap or o i l f i l m s , why there are t i d e s , Vvhy magnets at t r a c t some metals and not others, why we f e e l cooler when we are wet, etc. Again, the discussion of physics' explanation f o r these phenomena should be diagnostic and a n a l y t i c a l i n nature i n an e f f o r t to i d e n t i f y and resolve any t r i c k y or mysterious aspects of the students' understanding of these phenomena. Value Statement R9: Natural Phenomena are Interesting In the course rationale the i n s t r u c t o r describes natural phenomena as i n t e r e s t i n g and i n fact " i n t e l l e c t u a l l y e x c i t i n g " because they exhibit "the beauty of the l o g i c a l structure i n nature". His in t e r e s t i n natural phenomena i s therefore based prim a r i l y on the fact that so many natural phenomena are explained through the application of a few basic laws of physics. The basic teaching function to be served i n a s s i s t i n g t h i s group of students to develop an i n t e r e s t i n natural, phenomena i s S , to pres-88 ent strategies which assemble facts supporting t h i s a f f e c t i v e response toward natural phenomena. Sample facts the student may bring to bear on t h i s issue are: 1. The instructor's obvious i n t e r e s t i n natural phenomena. 2. Examples of a given law (or laws) explaining a diverse set of natural observations. 3. The consequences or effects of natural phenomena i n terms of meeting personal or s o c i e t a l needs. The strategies the i n s t r u c t o r may select t o e s t a b l i s h these facts are: • 1. The use of unobtrusive expressions of in t e r e s t — voice expression, f a c i a l expression, etc., when t a l k i n g about natural phenomena. 2. Verbal expression of his personal interest, i n the examples of natural phenomena under discussion. 3. Selected i l l u s t r a t i o n s of how a given law (e.g., Newton's second law) can explain a diverse set.of natural phenomena (e.g., instances of mechanical, e l e c t r i c a l , and magnetic forces). 4. I l l u s t r a t i o n s of how natural phenomena can be harnessed to meet personal or s o c i e t a l needs (e.g., r e f r a c t i o n of 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 of paradoxical phenomena (e.g., water climbing up a c a p i l l a r y tube, ice water b o i l i n g i n a depressurized atmosphere). 3.6.3 Sample Teaching Strategies 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 ratings R and R as requiring 2 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 strategies S... The following discussion w i l l present sample strategies and t h e i r rationale i n terms of the teaching functions they address. Value Statement R?: Physics i s Potent Sj 2' Strategies 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 following 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 objectives of the course. This strategy w i l l be seen to be composed of the same or s i m i l a r moves i l l u s t r a t e d i n Section 3 . 6 . 2"for 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 of the inportant goals of t h i s course i s that you come to see the potency of physics — that i s , i t s power or strength, and width i n terms of i t s a b i l i t y to explain a wide range of natural phen-omena. This power becomes most evident when these explanations are seen to 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 application of a select few laws to a wide variety of s i t u a t i o n s . For a l l of you unfortunately, t h i s introductory course w i l l permit you to experience the strength of physics i n i t s explanations of but a small sample of. natural phenonena. This means of course that at the end pf t h i s year you personally w i l l not be able to explain a l l natural phenomena you encounter through the application of physics. Hopefully however, the 90 experiences you do gain i n t h i s course w i l l provide you with adequate reason f o r viewing physics as I do — a s a strong and powerful science. This strategy, when analyzed, can again be seen to be composed of moves which i d e n t i f y the value object and value term, explicate 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 to be judged. S_ Strategies f o r Assembling Purported Facts The value judgment "Physics i s potent" must be based upon facts relevant to the explanatory power of physics. Two facts relevant to t h i s judgment are: 1. A given law can be used to explain a wide range of phenomena. 2. E f i o r t s to explain natural phenomena p r i o r to 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 available today have been found to be inaccurate or incorrect. To demonstrate that these facts are true, the spe c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis f o r Group 9 could include: 1. Examples of the application of a given law or p r i n c i p l e to a diverse and large set of phenomena. Here the emphasis would be on providing a large number of examples, rather than on d i a g n o s t i c a l l y analyzing a few examples as was suggested f o r Group 1. 91 2 . Examples from the histor y of science of attempts to explain natural phenomena p r i o r to the a c q u i s i t i o n of today's physical laws and theories, and a comparison of the accuracy and consequences of these explanations with today's explanations of the same phenomena. For example, comparisons could be made between Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomy, or the Newtonian view that l i g h t was due to the displacement of p a r t i c l e s of a mechanical ether could be compared to the modern e l e c t r o -magnetic theory of l i g h t . 3. Examples of how very simple laws can be used to explain what appear to be complex phenomena (e.g., laws of r e f r a c t i o n and rainbows). Value Statement R^: Problem Solving 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 strategy that could be used to i d e n t i f y and c l a r i f y the value statement. Physics attempts to provide explanations or pre-dictions r e l a t i n g to physical phenomena or events. I t does t h i s through the application of selected laws and p r i n c i p l e s to the events i n question, and where necessary through the r e v i s i o n or replacement of laws which provide explanations or predictions which disagree with observation. To understand how physics works i n providing these explanations and predictions i t i s necessary to personally exper-ience the process of applying physics, to s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s . This i s the purpose of the problem solving exercises that you w i l l encounter during t h i s course. I t i s an objective of t h i s course 9 2 that you come to see problem solving as a very potent or powerful way of learriing how physics works. While the correctness of problem solutions are of obvious consequences, the focus of your attention i n these practice exercises should be on the problem solving process. I t i s through . these exercises that you w i l l see examples of how the models of r e a l i t y offered by physics provide explanations f o r the phenomena surrounding us. Working through these examples and actually solving problems i s undoubtedly the most powerful way of gaining an understanding of how physics works. • S_ : Strategies f o r Assembling Purported Facts Two facts that appear relevant to the value statement i n question are: 1. Problem solving instances i n history have put c e r t a i n theories i n disfavour or l e d to • t h e i r replacement, when c r u c i a l problems posed by these theories could not be solved. 2. Selected.problem solutions have come to act as exemplars of how physics works through the i l l u s t r a t i o n of problem solving methods general-iz a b l e to s i m i l a r problem si t u a t i o n s . The special i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis f o r Group 9 could therefore include (1) examples of problem solving instances which led to the re-placement of p a r t i c u l a r theories or laws (e.g., The Michelson and Morley experiment) and (2) examples of problem solutions which have come, to act as exemplars of how physics works (e.g., Atwood's Machine). 3.6.4 A Summary of the In s t r u c t i o n a l Emphasis Suggested f o r  Group 1 and Group 9 The strategies selected as examples of the speci 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 of facts r e l e -93 vant to changing the "negative" a f f e c t i v e responses displayed by these students upon t h e i r entry i n t o t h i s Physics 110 course. In summary, the sample strategies selected f o r Group 1, which addressed the students' comprehensibility r a t i n g of Physics, Problem Solving, and Natural Phen-omena, entailed (1) a slower pace to permit a diagnostic approach to only a "core" group of laws, p r i n c i p l e s , and methods, (2) the application of these laws, p r i n c i p l e s , and methods to problem solving situations which (a) stress the explanation of f a m i l i a r yet poorly understood natural phenomena, (b) provide an h i s t o r i c a l comparison of how comprehen-s i b l e these phenomena now are with how incomprehensible they were p r i o r to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and application of laws and p r i n c i p l e s we now possess, and (c) provide exemplars of problem solving methods generalizable to other problem s i t u a t i o n s . The sample strategies which attempt to change t h i s groups' lack of in t e r e s t i n natural phenomena e n t a i l an overt (verbal and physical) display of the instructor's i n t e r e s t , the i l l u s t r a -t i o n of paradoxical phenomena which appear contrary to expectation, and the i l l u s t r a t i o n of how natural phenomena have been harnessed to meet important personal or s o c i e t a l needs. The sample strategies f o r Group 9> which address the potency ratings of Physics and.Problem Solving, emphasized (1) the application of given laws or p r i n c i p l e s to a wide range of phenomena (with the emphasis on a large number of examples rather than on the diagnostic analysis of. only a few examples as was suggested f o r Group 1), (2) examples of how very simple laws can be used to explain what appear to be complex phen-omena, (3) comparisons of the accuracy and consequences of h i s t o r i c a l -and modern physics' explanations f o r natural phenomena, (4) problem 94 solving instances which have led to revolutions In s c i e n t i f i c theories, and (5) problem solutions which have come to act as exemplars of how physics works. The a f f e c t i v e ratings addressed by the strategies summarized above were d i f f e r e n t f o r the two groups. The strategies themselves can be seen to be di f f e r e n t a l s o , yet not t o t a l l y independent. The over-lap noted does not i d e n t i f y any inconsistency i n the process of se l e c t -ing strategies; rather i t suggests that a given fact can be relevant t o , or i n Coombs and Meux's terms, have p o s i t i v e or negative valence with respect to more than one value r a t i n g . 95 CHAPTER IV AN EVALUATION OF THE PROCEDURE 4.1 Overview of the Chapter The Procedure i s a p r a c t i c a l application of psychometric and s t a t i s t i c a l techniques, theory and empirical findings.to an educational problem. The value of the Procedure therefore rests upon i t s educational merits, s p e c i f i c a l l y i t s a b i l i t y to systematically and p r a c t i c a l l y provide a basis f o r deciding among i n s t r u c t i o n a l alternatives f o r given a f f e c t i v e goals. Encompassed w i t h i n the Procedure i s the application of: 1. A t h e o r e t i c a l construct of a f f e c t . 2. Techniques f o r i d e n t i f y i n g a course rationale and a f f e c t i v e responses of concern to 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 describing affec-t i v e responses. 4. Q-analysis procedures f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and describing types of students i n terms of s i m i l a r sets of a f f e c t i v e responses. 5. learning theories and empirical findings used to guide the selection of teaching strategies aimed at 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 of evaluation i n t h i s chapter. 96 4.2 C r i t e r i a f o r Evaluating the Procedure 4.2.1 C r i t e r i a f o r Evaluating the Psychometric and S t a t i s t i c a l  Aspects of the Procedure Psychometrics refers to the process of mapping psychological constructs i n t o a numerical domain. The psychometric and related s t a t -i s t i c a l aspects of the Procedure therefore r e l a t e to 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 analysis and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the data derived from i t s a p p l i c a t i o n , including the Q-analysis procedures. These aspects 6f the Procedure must meet cer t a i n c r i t e r i a as necessary preconditions to the educational value of the Procedure. The two general c r i t e r i a to be met are: 1. Does the application of the SD and Q-analysis techniques wi t h i n the Procedure follow w e l l established practice? 2. Is there evidence that the SD and Q-analysis techniques wi t h i n the Procedure accurately i d e n t i f y and describe students i n terms of the antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses deemed to be important? These c r i t e r i a r e l a t e to the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the data gained from the application of the SD and Q-analysis techniques. 4.2.2 C r i t e r i a f o r Evaluating the Educational Outcomes of the Procedure The educational value of the Procedure rests upon I t s a b i l i t y to meet a' s i g n i f i c a n t educational need i n a p r a c t i c a l way. A statement of the thesis pf t h i s study In Section 1.4 defines t h i s need to be the 97 establishment of a more systematic basis f o r i d e n t i f y i n g teaching strategies directed toward the f u l f i l l m e n t of a f f e c t i v e goals. The following two general c r i t e r i a therefore express the basis upon which the educational value of the Procedure re s t s : 1. Are the modal patterns generated by the Procedure useful as a basis 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 strategies?• 2. Is the Procedure p r a c t i c a l as an approach to meeting the educational need of concern? An examination of the p r a c t i c a l i t y of the Procedure w i l l i d e n t i f y (1) the f e a s i b i l i t y , and time and monetary costs of i t s component parts and.(2) those component parts, i f any, which can be pursued independently by a classroom teacher, and those aspects requiring the involvement of an i n d i v i d u a l with psychometric and s t a t i s t i c a l expertise. The conclusions drawn w i l l provide the basis f o r recommendations regarding future applica-tions of the Procedure. 4.3 An Evaluation of the Procedure The evaluation of the Procedure w i l l examine each of i t s component parts as outlined i n Section 4.1 of t h i s chapter and as defined as sub-problems of t h i s study i n Section 1.4, Chapter I. This examination w i l l be i n terms of the psychometric and s t a t -i s t i c a l , educational usefulness, and educational p r a c t i c a l i t y c r i t e r i a set out i n the previous section, and w i l l be based upon the application 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 parts of the Procedure 9 8 were given i n Chapter I I . 4.3.1 The Selection of a Theoretical Construct of Affect STEP 1 Subproblem 1 Select, describe, and j u s t i f y the choice a t h e o r e t i c a l construct of affect toward or against an object. The Procedure was developed and applied within the context of Fishbein's theory of af f e c t . A description of 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 orientation i s given i n Section 2.2.1." This orientation was selected to provide a t h e o r e t i c a l basis f o r the use of the SD, and to give d i r e c t i o n to the 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 of data t o be derived from t h i s use. In practice,. Fishbein'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 contribution toward meeting the educational need addressed by the Procedure. Fishbein's theory was also selected on the basis of i t s p o t e n t i a l usefulness as a guide to the se l e c t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies. How-ever, i n the application of the Procedure, Fishbein's theory was found to possess l i m i t e d usefulness i n t h i s regard. The fact that t h i s theory d i d not d i s t i n g u i s h between facts and b e l i e f s made i t d i f f i c u l t to use i t as a guide to the selection of i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies which provide a r a t i o n a l basis f o r making an a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g . This and other issues r e -l a t i n g to Fishbein's theory w i l l be discussed more f u l l y In other sections of t h i s chapter. 4.3.2 The I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Aff e c t i v e Responses of Concern STEP 2 Subproblem 1 Select 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 variables 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 of plann-ing i n s t r u c t i o n a l 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 relevant antecedent a f f e c -t i v e responses was obtained from the empirically based suggestions of Stake, and Taylor and Maguire, with t h e o r e t i c a l guiding p r i n c i p l e s offered by Fishbein's theory. As outlined i n p r i n c i p l e i n Section 2.3.1, and i n practice i n Section 3-3, the problem of 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 actually a three stage problem. F i g . 8 diagrammatically depicts these three stages. 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 of the course rationale i s the heart of the problem. While the procedures suggested by Taylor and Maguire f o r meeting t h i s problem were i n practice found to be most e f f e c t i v e , the application of these procedures i n t h i s study substantiates Stake's recommendation that the i n s t r u c t o r receive considerable assistance i n deriving an accurate statement of h i s course rat i o n a l e . F i g . 8.—Procedure f o r Id e n t i f y i n g the Af f e c t i v e Responses of Concern The educational value of a course r a t i o n a l e , because i t i s a comprehensive statement of the in s t r u c t o r ' s general purposes, meets needs or beyond the requirements of the Procedure. Within 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 of the important observed a f f e c t i v e antecedents. In i t s more general Identify Course Rationale Identify A f f e c t i v e Goals wit h i n the course rationale Identify antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses which may influence the attainment of the a f f e c t i v e goals  100 capacity i t serves as a basis f o r the -selection of s p e c i f i c lesson objectives (intended outcomes) and teaching strategies (intended trans-actions). The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the course rationale w i t h i n the Procedure i s therefore seen to make a valuable educational contribution toward the f u l f i l l m e n t of the educational need i n question. The s e l e c t i o n of teaching strategies should always be based on a clear and accurate statement of objectives. I t i s the function of the rationale to 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 with a course rationale i s the time required to i d e n t i f y an accurate statement of the instructor's r a t i o n a l e — conservatively f i v e days of the instructor's time and an equal amount of time from an educator who possesses the s k i l l s to 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 of 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 of the a f f e c t i v e goals within the course rationale 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 influencing the attainment of these goals were straight forward t a s k s 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 d i r e c t i v e s : 1. Identify a l l statements of purpose wi t h i n the course rationale which r e l a t e to students "feelings". 2. Identify feelings created i n the past which may influence the attainment of the "f e e l i n g s " stated in.the a f f e c t i v e goals. Fishbein's theory of affect formation or change i s the p r i n c i p l e underlying the second statement. In t h i s context Fishbein's theory makes a d e f i n i t e contribution to meeting the educational need i n question. 101 4.3.3 The Selection of a Psychometric Technique STEP 2 Subproblem 2 Select, describe, and j u s t i f y the choice of a psychometric technique f o r obtaining observations on the a f f e c t i v e antecedent responses The SD technique, described i n Section 2.3.2, was selected as the method of measuring students' a f f e c t i v e responses. Section 3.4 discusses the construction and administration of the SD f o r the Physics 110 course and the processing of the SD data. Psychometric and S t a t i s t i c a l Evaluation The Procedure focused on the application of a set of w e l l established psychometric and s t a t -i s t i c a l techniques. The established procedures f o r constructing 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 studies. The ess e n t i a l features of established practice include (1) the careful s e l e c t i o n of objects and scales which are relevant to and representative of the area of i n t e r e s t , (2) a set of standard instructions f o r administering the instrument, and (3) the use of standard factor a n a l y t i c techniques f o r summarizing the responses on the SD instrument. These features are delineated i n Section 2.3.2, Chapter I I . As Section 3.4 i n Chapter I I I documents, the use of the SD conformed to acceptable c r i t e r i a and practice In t h i s respect Section 3.4.1 describes the careful manner i n which the SD objects and scales were selected, Section 3.4.2 outlined the method of controlled administration of the instrument, and Appendix B i l l u s t r a t e s the detailed i n s t r u c t i o n given to students. Sections 3.4.4 and 3.4.5 describe the methods of employing standard factor analytic techniques f o r summarizing the raw data. 102 Special attention must be drawn to the fact that i n the SD con-structed f o r the Physics 110 course each object was followed by the same set of scales. This was a necessary condition f o r t h i s a p plication of the SD, since the data underwent addi t i o n a l analysis outside the frame-work of the Procedure, analysis which demanded a common "semantic space" f o r each object. For the purposes of the Procedure i t i s not necessary to follow each object by the same set of scales. In f a c t , each object need only be followed by scales which are representative of and d i r e c t l y relevant to the a f f e c t i v e responses of concern. This may mean that some objects can be followed by the same set of scales, while others are followed by fewer, or more scales. Such a practice would reduce the task imposed upon students, increase the face v a l i d i t y of the instrument i n terms of i t s r e f l e c t i o n of only the a f f e c t i v e responses of concern, and possibly enhance the ease by which the empirical scale factors are i n t e r -preted. The practice of following each object by the same set of scales has the p o t e n t i a l of associating some objects with 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 of concern. That i s , scales selected to measure a f f e c t i v e responses to certain objects are not necessarily pertinent to a l l objects. 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 to .respond neutrally to those scales they considered to be completely i r r e l e v a n t or unrelated to the object. This i n s t r u c t i o n i s commonly 88 used i n SD studies. With respect to the r e s u l t s of the factor analyses of the SD data, Table 3 i l l u s t r a t e s that approximately one h a l f of the variance 103 i n the students' raw responses to the scales remained unaccounted f o r by the three of four factors retained under each SD object. This f i n d i n g i s representative of the re s u l t s of most studies i n which three or four of Osgood's standard factors are extracted. As Osgood points out, some of the remainder of the variance may be attributable to sheer u n r e l i a b i l i t y , but part of i t does represent the presence of additional 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 scales and objects and p o t e n t i a l l y extractable. Asking students to respond to the same set of scales under each object f o r example contributed to the variance unaccounted f o r by the factors r e -tained. This practice e l i c i t e d some af f e c t i v e responses of no consequence to the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course. Factor structures, accounting for. larger proportions of variance and composed of more than three of four factors were extracted and studied f o r each object. However the f i n a l . factor structures composed of three or four factors were retained on the basis of the factor structures' i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y and relevance to the af f e c t i v e goals of the course. Selecting factor structures accounting f o r only one h a l f of the variance i n students' raw responses was therefore not a deviation from accepted practice and by t h i s standard does not rep-resent a weakness i n the application of the SD with i n the Procedure. Given that.standard practice with respect to the use of the SD was followed i n t h i s study, the findings reported by Osgood and many others regarding s c a l i n g assumptions (Section 3-4.3)» factor 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 of the factor scores under retest conditions)., face and construct v a l i d i t y should apply. With respect to factor score r e l i a b i l i t y , Osgood reports that i n one representative study, changes i n factor scores exceeding 1.00 on the evaluative 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 less than- 5% of 112 subjects retested w i t h i n 30 minutes. 9 0 With respect to 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 or clusterings of objects and scales made through use of the SD were shown to correspond to d i s t i n c t i o n s or clusterings made without the use of 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 addition, 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 attitude scales ( L i k e r t , Thurstone) were i n excess of .90. 9 2 While i t was not the focus of the present study t o repeat any of these formal investigations regarding the v a l i d i t y of SD data, there is. evidence wit h i n the study supporting the v a l i d i t y of the data generated. The SD i t s e l f (Appendix B) has content or face v a l i d i t y i n that the con-cepts and underlying scales selected r e f l e c t the af f e c t i v e responses important to the f u l f i l l m e n t of the a f f e c t goals within the course ra t i o n a l e . Section 3-4.6 discusses the in t e r p r e t a t i o n of the scale factors i d e n t i f i e d , , and the fact that these factors can be represented as expected "common-sense" clusterings.of scales ( i . e . , face v a l i d i t y ) , clusterings reproduced i n previous studies by Osgood and many other investigators employing s i m i l a r sets of scales. In addition these scale factors were highly r e -producable i n a second group of 200 students (Group B) from the same Physics 110 course. These scale factors are displayed i n Appendix C. The modal patterns also exhibit face v a l i d i t y , since on a given modal pattern common sense relationships can be seen among those a f f e c t i v e 105 responses which are either highly p o s i t i v e or highly negative. Additional evidence supporting the v a l i d i t y of the SD was obtained at the time of i t s administration. As students handed i n t h e i r completed SD instruments they were informally and randomly asked questions l i k e "what d i d you think of when you were responding to the words under natural phenomena? Can you give me an example of the 'power' of physics?" and so on. .Examples given f o r natural phenomena were "the moon, l i g h t n i n g , mag-netism, water, l i g h t , wind, etc.".. Examples of the power or strengths of physics i n v a r i a b l y involved expressions l i k e "the a b i l i t y of physics to explain e l e c t r i c i t y , or heat, . . . " which related to the "explanatory power" of physics. In general, the responses obtained were consistent with the intended i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the SD objects and scales. This f i n d -i ng i s of v i t a l importance, since the SD was constructed i n the context of a course rationale and the responses to i t interpreted w i t h i n the same context. However, at the time of administration of the SD the students were not f a m i l i a r with the course r a t i o n a l e , and hence might have i n t e r -preted the objects and scales quite d i f f e r e n t l y than intended. I f a difference i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n had existed, the modal patterns would not i n fact r e f l e c t the a f f e c t i v e responses of concern, i n spite 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 of some af f e c t i v e states held by students, but perhaps not the a f f e c t i v e states of concern to the s e l e c t i o n of teaching strategies addressing the a f f e c t i v e goals of t h i s course. In summary, the observations above support the conclusions that (1) the application of the SD within the Procedure met the c r i t e r i o n of 106 established p r a c t i c e , and (2) the data obtained through t h i s application were v a l i d . In t h i s sense therefore,-. these observations support the use of the SD as meeting the necessary preconditions to i t s educational value. I t would have been reassuring however i f even more data were available supporting the v a l i d i t y of the SD data. Educational Evaluation In 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 construction of the SD or i t s admin-i s t r a t i o n i n the classroom context. The instrument was printed on custom designed computer scannable forms to f a c i l i t a t e the data processing. This was a convenient but not a necessary step i n the preparation of the i n s t r u -ment. The SD can be printed i n i t s standard format using any available duplicating 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 neither they nor the i n s t r u c t o r appeared to view the task as too time consuming or obtrusive. Given that the a f f e c t i v e antecedent responses of concern to 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 have been i d e n t i f i e d , the construction and administration of the SD are judged to be tasks which could be undertaken by an i n s t r u c t o r without assistance from a trained psycho-metrician. As a- prerequisite i t would be necessary f o r the i n s t r u c t o r to study pp. 76-85 of "The Measurement of Meaning" i n which Osgood provides a nontechnical p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r constructing and administering 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 assur-ances of past studies that h i s data were accurate r e f l e c t i o n s of the a f f e c t i v e responses of concern to him. In t h i s present study, the i n s t r u c -t o r had the assistance of the investigator i n constructing and administering 107 the SD. Assistance of t h i s nature undoubtedly increased the e f f i c i e n c y of these tasks. The analysis of the SD data i s an area i n which most instructors w i l l require assistance from an Individual with expertise i n the use of computers and i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of factor analysis data. This i n d i v i -dual (or indivi d u a l s ) must have knowledge of how to (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 factor analytic programs, and (3) interpret the r e s u l t s of factor analysis and apply judicious combinations of c r i t e r i a d e fining the number of factors to rotate. Since the SD objects and scales w i l l be unique to the goals of a given course, an application of the Procedure to d i f f e r e n t courses w i l l always require a complete analysis of the data. Neither SD scale factor structures nor student types (modal patterns) are necessarily general-izable from one course to the next. The preparation of the SD data f o r computer a c c e s s i b i l i t y can be costly i n terms of time and money, and i s seen as a p o t e n t i a l prac-t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n of the Procedure i n educational settings without the resources to meet these expenses. This l i m i t a t i o n unfortunately e x i s t s i n any empirical study requiring the computer analysis of a large body of data. Once the raw SD data i s on computer cards, or i n t e r n a l l y stored i n the computer the scale factors 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 available f a c t o r analysis programs. This process however i s demanding i n terms of the time required to survey the meaningfulness of d i f f e r e n t numbers of factors f o r a given SD object. In summary, the monetary and time cost of preparing the SD data 108 f o r computer analysis, the need f o r a computer, and the need to obtain assistance from an i n d i v i d u a l with computer and.psychometric expertise may 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 the SD i n some applications of the Procedure. While the SD appears to provide v a l i d indices of the a f f e c t i v e responses needed as a basis 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 above c l e a r l y l i m i t i t s application or marketability i n c e r t a i n educational settings. 4.3.4 The Selection of S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures STEP 2 Subproblem 3 Select, describe, 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 of t h e i r antecedent responses. Psychometric and S t a t i s t i c a l Evaluation The technique of Q-analysis was selected as the means of i d e n t i f y i n g students with 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 application of Guertin's comprehensive p r o f i l e analysis program. Rules or p r i n c i p l e s of practice regarding the use of the Q-analysis technique r e l a t e i n essence to the proper uses of factor analytic procedures. Section .2.3.3 outlines these p r i n c i p l e s and documents Guertin's program as adhering to them. In using the investigator's modification of Guertin's program the user has control over the number of factors to rotate at each stage In 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 empirically based and established 93 r u l e of practice. J The Q-analysis performed i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of the 109 Procedure can therefore be said to have conformed with established practice. The v a l i d i t y of the modal patterns i d e n t i f i e d by the Q-analysis i s dependent upon two issues, the f i r s t being the v a l i d i t y of the SD fact 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 of the a f f e c t i v e responses of concern. Support f o r the v a l i d i t y of these scores was given i n Section 4.3.3. The second issue relates to the modal patterns' representativeness as t i g h t clusters of 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 c r i t i c a l issue since, as discussed i n Section 3-4.9> the number and hence kinds of 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 small number of af 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 of students can be seen i n the fact that 191,of the 200 students load higher than .50 on the varimax factors defining the 16 modal patterns, with over h a l f of these students loading higher than .80 on these factors. The s i m i l a r i t y of the clusters of 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 that the average "d" value . between p r o f i l e s w i t h i n each of the shape families represented by the 16 modal patterns was .25 standard score u n i t s , as compared to an average "d" value of 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 implies that the average deviation of scores on the same a f f e c t i v e response between two p r o f i l e s within a shape family was less than .10 standard score units. The modal patterns appear therefore t o v a l i d l y represent the a f f e c t i v e responses of a group of students with very s i m i l a r sets of a f f e c t i v e responses. An issue which might have bearing on the use of the Procedure i n some settings 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 of students drawn from the same population ( i . e . , class of students). In Section 3.^ «5> a study addressing t h i s issue was referred to as a cross v a l i d a t i o n study. Another study r e l a t i n g less d i r e c t l y to the issue of 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 of s i m i l a r clusters of students from a given sample- through the use of an alternate form of analysis to Q-analysis. Studies of both these kinds are reported i n Appendix H. Clusters 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 alternate c l u s t e r i n g procedure were found to possess a 50% overlap i n s i m i l a r i t y . This r e s u l t would be expected i n view of the "tightness" of the clusters 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 to be reproducible across random samples of 200 students drawn from the same population — the Physics 110 class. This f i n d i n g was not s u r p r i s i n g , and was i n fact anticipated i n view of the large number of d i f f e r e n t shapes that could e x i s t i n a set of p r o f i l e s of nine variables, and also i n view of 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 in 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 ) existed, would each be represented by several 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 of students. The. r e s u l t s of the cross v a l i d a t i o n studies, t h e i r causes, t h e i r implications f o r p o t e n t i a l users of the Procedure, and t h e i r Implications f o r future research are discussed i n d e t a i l In 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 variables on a p r o f i l e , and the s t a t i s t i c a l requirements of 111 c o r r e l a t i o n a l and factor analysis which would encourage a large number of variables on the p r o f i l e s . In Q-analysis, the observations over which the indices of s i m i l a r i t y (e.g., correlations or functions of distance) are calculated are variables, and not subjects as they are i n R-analysis. Hence the r e l i a b i l i t y of the indices of s i m i l a r i t y i s a function of the number of variables, which by empirical rule i s suggested to be 100 or more f o r unreliable data. Only nine variables were used i n the Q-analysis of the Pnysics 110 course data. Since these nine variables were factor scores or weighted averages of many observations and hence much more r e l i a b l e than nine single observations, the indices of s i m i l a r i t y should themselves be r e l i a b l e . In addition, i n t h i s study the.nine variables were considered to be a population of variables rather than a sample of nine variables 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 requires considerable discussion and complete agreement among a l l persons involved i n applying the Procedure — the 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, etc. To the extent that the variables selected f a l l short of being "the universe of variables", the Procedure i s f a u l t y . As described i n Section 3.4.8, the nine variables were selected as the a f f e c t i v e responses of relevance to the s e l e c t i o n of a f f e c t i v e teaching strategies. This being the case, i t would not be a v a l i d c r i t i c i s m that the indices of c o r r e l a t i o n or distance are lacking i n s t a b i l i t y according to a t - t e s t with eight degrees of freedom. The r e l a t i v e l y small number of factor scores on a p r o f i l e i s therefore not seen to 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 of 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 of the modal patterns, 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 Evaluation The educational value of the Q-analysis technique within the Procedure relates t o the e f f e c t s of i t s use — f i r s t to the i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y of the modal patterns and t h e i r usefulness as a guide to the sel e c t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t rategies, and second to the costs associated with i t s application. The modal patterns i n Pig. 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 pattern and the group of students i t represents can be described i n terms of the a f f e c t i v e ratings 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 descriptions of Group 1 and Group 9 i l l u s t r a t e i n Section 3-5-6. The value of the modal patterns as a guide to the selection of i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies . relates to 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 ratings (or i n Coombs' terminology "value ratings") which are opposite i n character to the a f f e c t i v e ratings expressed i n the a f f e c t i v e goals of the cause. These "negative" a f f e c t i v e ratings on a given modal pattern i d e n t i f y those a f f e c t i v e goals requiring s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis fo r the corresponding group of students. V i s u a l inspection of 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 with which the negative a f f e c t i v e ratings are i d e n t i f i a b l e . The descriptions of Group 1 and Group 9 i n Section 3-4.6 i l l u s t r a t e the manner i n which these ratings can i n turn be associated with and described i n terms of the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course requiring s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis. In t h i s respect, the sample Physics 110 data supports the judgment that the 113 Q-analysis procedure makes a valuable educational contribution to meeting the educational need i n question. The costs of performing the Q-analysis, however, l i k e the costs associated with the analysis of the raw SD data, are quite high. 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 of an analysis of 200 students over nine variables i s approximately $20.00 per computer run where up to ten runs may be. made before the f i n a l set of modal patterns i s i d e n t i f i e d . 'Phis process would conservatively require two days. Because of the complexity of the program the i n s t r u c t o r w i l l require 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 of Q-analysis i t s e l f w i l l require most instructors to seek guidance in' 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 of Q-analysis creates rather 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 of the i n s t r u c t o r and a consultant. As i n the case of the SD scale factor analyses, the use of Q-analysis l i m i t s the market of the Procedure to educational settings where computers and ind i v i d u a l s with computer and s t a t i s t i c a l expertise are a v a i l a b l e , and from the point of view of f e a s i b i l i t y possesses s l i g h t or rather un-c e r t a i n educational significance i n other settings. 4.3-5 The Selection of Teaching Strategies STEP 2 Subproblem 4 Select and describe t h e o r e t i c a l positions and experimental findings pertinent to the selection of teaching strategies 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 of t h e i r antecedent a f f e c t i v e states, and (2) appear useful In teaching directed toward a f f e c t i v e goals. Having the descriptions of groups i n terms of the a f f e c t i v e goals 114 requiring 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 to then look to the resources available f o r providing guidance i n the selection of i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies to secure the f u l f i l l m e n t of these goals. The educational value of these resources relates to t h e i r effectiveness as guides t o the selection of these strategies. The ultimate c r i t e r i a against which the educational value of these resources could be assessed would be the extent to which the strategies selected through t h e i r guidance were successful i n changing the negative a f f e c t i v e ratings expressed i n the descriptions of the groups. This i s an empirical problem and would e n t a i l a controlled study of students' a f f e c t i v e ratings p r i o r to and following i n s t r u c t i o n . Such a study was not possible during the Physics 110 course, since at the time of 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 strategies were not available. A second c r i t e r i o n against which the educational value of these resources could be assessed would be the extent to which independent judges would agree that sample strategies selected f o r the d i f f e r e n t groups of students through the guidance of these resources were i n fact appropriate f o r these groups. This second c r i t e r i o n was used i n t h i s study. A ph y s i c i s t teaching a f i r s t year un 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 to agree or disagree that the sample strategies described i n Section 3-6.2 and Section 3.6.3 were appropriate i n terms of the descrip-tions of Group 1 and Group 9 given i n Section 3.6.1. No disagreement was noted. Another c r i t e r i o n against which an assessment of the resources available f o r guiding the selection of strategies can be made i s the 115 experience of the author i n his attempts to use these resources. The resource providing most guidance i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the sample strategies i n Section 3.6.2 and Section 3.6.3 was found to be Coombs and Meux's delineation of the tasks that must be f u l f i l l e d , or teaching functions that.must be served i n the process of a r r i v i n g at a j u s t i f i e d value judgment. ; From the attempts to i l l u s t r a t e the use of t h i s ' resource i n the selection of strategies i n Chapter I I I i t became apparent that the focus of the teaching strategies directed at the a f f e c t i v e goals of the Physics 110 course needed to be on the accumulation of facts relevant to the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g w i t h i n the goal. For some a f f e c t i v e ratings the greatest problem encountered i n t h i s process was to i d e n t i f y more than one or two relevant f a c t s . This problem was f e l t to be created by the s p e c i f i c nature of some of the value judgments being made, and the' fact that these judgments were based on as few as one fact or related set of fa c t s . For example, the r a t i n g "physics i s powerful" i s based pri m a r i l y upon the fact that "physics can explain a wide range of natural phenomena". Ide n t i f y i n g facts relevant to more general value ratings 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 facts which are relevant to 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 strategies to serve the teaching functions delineated by Coombs and Meux were the moves i d e n t i f i e d through the empirical studies of Smith,. Meux e t a l . The work of Coombs and Meux, and Smith, Meux, et a l . , were found to go hand i n hand i n providing useful guidance f o r meeting the problem of selecting i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies. I t should be noted that the teaching functions i d e n t i f i e d by 116 Coombs and Meux are also i m p l i c i t i n a vague manner i n Fishbein's theory. F i g . 9 summarizes the re l a t i o n s h i p between these two resources. I t i s comforting that these two resources, one from philosophers and one from a psychologist, present somewhat consistent points of view. These resources do d i f f e r however i n one important respect. 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 of f a c t s , which Coombs and Meux emphasize, and the r o l e of b e l i e f s , which Fishbein emphasizes, i n the development of a f f e c t i v e ratings. In Fishbein's view, a statement of fact i s but one form of a b e l i e f statement. Fishbein i d e n t i f i e s other 94 forms of b e l i e f s which may influence a f f e c t i v e ratings. However, from a l o g i c a l point of view Coombs and Meux note that facts are the only basis 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 ratings which instructors usually s t r i v e f o r i n teaching directed toward the f u l f i l l m e n t of 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 point that education does not possess the t h e o r e t i c a l or empirical resources needed to prescribe teaching strategies. Nor i s there any guarantee that the f u l f i l l m e n t of the s i x tasks outlined by Coombs and Meux w i l l lead t o the development of the evaluative ratings or value judgments that are desired. However, given the present state of the a r t , the use of the resources discussed above appeared to be a s i g n i f i c a n t step toward meeting an educational need — that of i d e n t i f y i n g teaching strategies directed at the f u l f i l l m e n t of a f f e c t i v e goals. 117 Teaching Functions Coombs and Meux Identify and c l a r i f y the value r a t i n g Assemble purported facts Assess the t r u t h of purported facts C l a r i f y the relevance of f a c t s -are the facts about the value object? -do these facts have p o s i t i v e or negative valence? Arrive at a tentative value decision Fishbein Identify the a f f e c t i v e response ( A q ) t o the object Identify b e l i e f s about the object E s t a b l i s h the strength (b.) of the b e l i e f s 1 C l a r i f y the relevance of b e l i e f s -are they about the object? -do the objects associated with the value object by the b e l i e f have valence (a-j_) on the af f e c -t i v e r a t i n g of concern? A ^ = . i a.b. ° i 1 1 F i g . 9.—Tne Relationship between Coombs and Meux'S Teaching Function and Fishbein's Theory of the Development of Af f e c t i v e Responses 4.4 Evaluation Summary The educational need addressed by t h i s study was the need to est a b l i s h a systematic basis f o r i d e n t i f y i n g teaching strategies directed toward the f u l f i l l m e n t of a f f e c t i v e goals. I t was the thesis of t h i s study that the Procedure could f u l f i l l t h i s need. In terms of t h i s c r i t e r i o n of need f u l f i l l m e n t , the re s u l t s of the application of the Procedure to the Physics 110 course document the v a l i d i t y of t h i s t h e s i s . The assessment of the Procedure also considered two other e s s e n t i a l c r i t e r i a — the psychometric and s t a t i s t i c a l soundness of the Procedure, and i t s p r a c t i c a l i t y . As preconditions to i t s educational value, the s t a t i s t i c a l and psychometric elements of the Procedure were 118 documented as adhering to established rules of 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 that elements of the Procedure are not prac-t i c a l i n some educational settings. In these settings t h i s concern i s based upon time and monetary costs. Looking sequentially at the steps within the Procedure, three elements of the Procedure appear t o demand s i g n i f i c a n t time or 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 to e n t a i l approx-imately f i v e days of 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. This i s believed to be a j u s t i f i a b l e and unavoidable investment of time i n the performance of perhaps the most important and most d i f f i c u l t aspect of the Procedure. The second and t h i r d elements of p a r t i c u l a r concern with respect to time and monetary considerations are the use of the SD to i d e n t i f y a f f e c t i v e responses and the use of Q-analysis to c l a s s i f y students i n terms of s i m i l a r sets of these responses. While the functions performed by these elements of the Procedure must be f u l f i l l e d , and while the SD and Q-analysis techniques were shown capable of f u l f i l l i n g them, the costs associated with these complex elements of the Procedure are high. The Fixed monetary costs associated with the use of the SD and Q-analysis techniques r e l a t e to the use of the computer. Four hundred do l l a r s would be a conservative estimate of the t o t a l costs associated with the i l l u s t r a t i o n of the Procedure using the 200 Group A Physics 110 students. This amount, believed to be a reasonable estimate of the costs of s i m i l a r applications of the Procedure, includes 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 modifi-cation of computer programs and to the analysis of other groups of students in addition to Group A for validation purposes). This number, which in-cludes the time taken to study the results of the analyses performed is believed to be representative of that which would be required in 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 in 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 is believed that most instructors possess neither the computer ski l l s , nor the stat-i 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 in 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 is 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 of the Problem The purpose of t h i s study was to develop and evaluate a systematic procedure f o r i d e n t i f y i n g , describing, and reporting a f f e c t i v e responses toward objects acquired i n the past to f a c i l i t a t e decisions on i n s t r u c -t i o n a l alternatives directed toward a f f e c t i v e goals. This systematic procedure, referred to as "the Procedure", was developed wit h i n the context of science i n s t r u c t i o n . The need f o r the Procedure was based upon the importance of a f f e c t i v e goals wi t h i n science i n s t r u c t i o n , and the fact that i n the past no systematic procedure has existed f o r taking antecedent a f f e c t i v e conditions i n t o account i n the process of se l e c t i n g teaching strategies directed toward the achievement of aff e c -t i v e goals. 5.1.2 The Methodology of the Procedure The general approach taken by the Procedure i n addressing the need stated above was to i d e n t i f y and describe subgroups of students within a class who possess s i m i l a r sets of antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses. The Q-analysis technique was employed to i d e n t i f y these subgroups. The observations on the degree of students' pro-ness or con-ness of these a f f e c t i v e responses were obtained through the use of 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 useful were the a f f e c t i v e 121 responses to objects which r e f l e c t e d the students' pro-ness or con-ness toward the a f f e c t i v e ratings inherent i n the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course. The goals themselves were e l i c i t e d from a statement of the course rationale. Given descriptions of subgroups of a class i n terms of t h e i r incoming status with respect to the a f f e c t i v e ratings of con-cern, i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies f o r these subgroups can then be selected to focus on changing the students' inconving a f f e c t i v e ratings which are most incongruent with those desired a f f e c t i v e ratings r e f l e c t e d i n the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course. 5.1.3 The Effectiveness of the Procedure The educational value of the Procedure rests upon the contribution that each of i t s component parts and underlying resources makes to meet-ing the educational need i n question, The re s u l t s of the application of the Procedure to the Physics 110 course support the general e f f e c t -iveness of the contribution of each component i n meeting t h i s need. There i s concern however that the time and monetary demands associated with some components may make the Procedure impractical i n educational settings without the resources to meet these demands. 5.2 Recommendations Two sets of recommendations s h a l l be presented. . The f i r s t set w i l l p ertain to the use of the Procedure i n i t s present form. The second set w i l l r e l a t e to use of alternatives to c e r t a i n components of the Procedure. 122 5.2.1 Recommendations pertaining to 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 Rationale The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the course rationale f o r the Physics 110 course, a d i f f i c u l t and time con-95 suming task, was given e f f e c t i v e guidance by the suggestions of Stake, 96 and Taylor 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 closely adhered to i n future applications of the Procedure. SD Technique An advantage of using the SD technique i n t h i s study i s that i t i s not c l e a r l y obvious to the student what the i n s t r u -ct? ment i s measuring. For example, many of the scales l i k e strong - weak, and wide - narrow need to be responded to i n a metaphorical or i n d i r e c t fashion. I t Is therefore d i f f i c u l t f o r the student to "fake" h i s res-ponses i f he were predisposed to do so. This apparent advantage of the SD can also be a s i g n i f i c a n t weakness i f t h i s lack of pr e c i s i o n of meaning or d e f i n i t i o n of scales (and objects also) permits or creates i n t e r -pretations 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 of concern. While the Physics 110 study d i d present evidence supporting the v a l i d i t y of the SD data, I t i s recommended that e f f o r t s at gathering addi 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 future studies of the Procedure. For example, the SD data could be cross-validated through a comparison with data obtained from an equivalent form of Thurstone or L i k e r t instrument designed to obtain observations 98 on one or more of the same a f f e c t i v e ratings. A less revealing but supporting study would also be the administration of the SD to groups of students who on an a p r i o r i basis would be expected to possess d i f f e r e n t 123 a f f e c t i v e predispositions to the objects i n question. The following recommendations are also made to guide the develop-ment of the SD Instrument and possibly enhance the v a l i d i t y of the SD data: 1. The instrument should be accompanied by a sheet which c l a r i f i e s the meaning of the SD objects, i f t h i s meaning may not univ e r s a l l y be shared by students. 2. Some SD scales could be pre c i s e l y stated as a d j e c t i v a l phrases rather than as simple adjectives, 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 of a s p e c i f i c rather than general nature. 3. The same set of scales should not necessarily follow each object. Only scales relevant to and representative of 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 scales should be selected to represent the population of objects and af f e c -t i v e responses defining the a f f e c t i v e ratings displayed i n the a f f e c t i v e goals of a course. While add i t i o n a l objects r e l a t e d to the "affec-t i v e goal objects" were included on the Physics 110 SD, the data obtained on these objects were not included on the p r o f i l e s i n the subsequent 124 Q-analysis. Section 3.4.8 provides the rationale f o r t h i s decision. Q-Analysis Guertin's computer program was found to 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 describing subgroups of students with 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 class. In future applications of t h i s technique however, i t i s recommended that the user be f u l l y cognizant of 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 variables on the p r o f i l e s . I t should be manditory wi t h i n the Procedure to check that the students wi t h i n the "types" i d e n t i f i e d do i n fact possess highly s i m i l a r p r o f i l e s . Selection of Strategies The s i x teaching functions to 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 to the s e l e c t i o n of sample strategies f o r the Physics 110 groups."' 0 0 As discussed i n Section 4.3.5, Fishbein's theory of the development of a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s , while' f o r the most part consistent with Coombs and Meux's a n a l y t i c a l approach, was not found to provide t h i s d i r e c t i o n . I t i s recommended therefore that i n s t r u c t i o n directed toward the f u l f i l l m e n t of a f f e c t i v e goals be guided by the teaching functions delineated 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 facts relevant to the a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g i n question. 5.2.1 Alternative Approaches The issue of alternatives to 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 of the costs associated with these components. Hie components of concern are the SD instrument and associated analyses, and the Q-analysis technique. I f these components could be replaced by 125 less complex, less demanding techniques, the major constraints on the use of the Procedure would be removed. SD Technique The l i m i t i n g feature of the SD i s the extensive data analysis associated with i t s use. The purpose of t h i s analysis i s to i d e n t i f y ( 1 ) the most meaningful clusters of scales under each object and ( 2 ) the students' scores on these clusters of scales. These scores define the students'affective ratings of the objects. Perhaps a more dir e c t way of measuring the degree of students' pro-ness or con-ness toward the a f f e c t i v e ratings of interest would be to present these ratings i n the form of statements on a L i k e r t scale and then ask students to indicate t h e i r degree of agreement or disagreement with them. I f there were only nine a f f e c t i v e ratings of i n t e r e s t , only nine statements would be required, 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 ratings. There are several problems associated with t h i s alternate approach. F i r s t , the judgments the student i s being asked to make w i l l be obvious to the student. I t would therefore be easy f o r the student to "fake" h i s responses, or give responses which express feelings that he believes the i n s t r u c t o r would l i k e to see. Second, because each score on the p r o f i l e s i s based upon a single observation, 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 serious question. Third, no t h e o r e t i c a l basis would exi s t f o r t h i s use of the L i k e r t technique. The L i k e r t technique i s based upon a unidimensional theory of a f f e c t . Hence users of t h i s technique should be concerned with the i n t e r n a l consistency of responses to statements to permit a single score to be derived. The extraction of a single score from each statement i s i n d i r e c t opposition 1 2 6 to t h i s theory. In addition t h i s use of the L i k e r t technique, since i t i s not based upon rules of established p r a c t i c e , would not have the support of the voluminous studies r e l a t i n g to the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of s i m i l a r L i k e r t instruments. Another alter n a t i v e one could consider would be to construct a standard L i k e r t , or perhaps Thurstone scale composed of groups of several statements relevant to and representative of each of the a f f e c t i v e ratings of concern. The responses on these groups of statements could then be summed or averaged, and the scores derived could define the p r o f i l e s of a f f e c t i v e responses. Because each of these scores i s derived 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 underlying 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 established use of these techniques. The degree to which the two suggested approaches l i s t e d above can be considered c r i t i c a l competitors to the SD techniques wi 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) available and (2) the instructor's concern over using less 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 or empirical support.. I t i s recommended of course that i f resources e x i s t , the SD technique be used, and that i t s use and studies of i t s v a l i d i t y be guided by the recommendations set f o r t h i n Section 5.2.1. I t i s also recommended that future applications of the Procedure attempt to i d e n t i f y yet other, less demanding, alternatives to 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 of scores ex i s t s as the basis 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 basis of p r o f i l e s of scores i s a complex problem, since comparisons between two p r o f i l e s involve comparisons of scores on each variable defining the p r o f i l e . I t i s f o r t h i s reason that s t a t i s t i c a l approaches to the c l a s s -i f i c a t i o n of 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 tp 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 to attempt to i d e n t i f y a set of patterns which were d i f f e r e n t , yet representative, and ask students to i d e n t i f y the pattern which i s most l i k e t h e i r own p r o f i l e . The concerns related to t h i s approach revolve around the degree to which the patterns selected depict representative p r o f i l e s and t i g h t clusters of s i m i l a r students. Two problems underlie 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 patterns he defines ac 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 -ing a pattern of scores which i s most l i k e t h e i r own. Again, the extent to which t h i s suggested approach can be con-sidered a c r i t i c a l competitor to the Q-analysis technique w i l l depend upon the balance between the resources available and the in s t r u c t o r ' s concern over the two issues r a i s e d above. I t i s again recommended that i f resources are available the i n s t r u c t o r l e t the computer, through the app l i c a t i o n of Q-analysis, perform the complex task of i d e n t i f y i n g types of students within a class and then c l a s s i f y i n g students wi t h i n these types. Future users of the Procedure are s t i l l encouraged however to attempt to i d e n t i f y less demanding alternatives to Q-analysis. 1 2 8 5.3 Conclusions The f i e l d of computer science has successfully used the resources i n the related f i e l d s of physics and engineering to create computer systems capable of meeting the challenge of 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 true. Basic unsolved problems e x i s t . In the pursuit of solutions to these problems . Broudy points out, that 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 . Following t h i s course, t h i s study applied p h i l o s o p h i c a l , phychologlcal, and associated psychometric and s t a t i s t i c a l resources to a basic classroom problem — the se l e c t i o n of teaching strategies directed at a f f e c t i v e goals. A systematic Procedure employing the knowledge and methods of these resource areas was developed f o r the purpose of accurately i d e n t i f y i n g antecedent and intended a f f e c -t i v e states as guides to the se l e c t i o n of these strategies. On the basis of the r e s u l t s of the ap p l i c a t i o n and evaluation of t h i s Procedure i n t h i s study, i t can be concluded that the Procedure i s capable of f u l f i l l i n g t h i s purpose. I t s greatest weakness i s i t s complexity. I t s greatest strength i s the experience i t provides to the i n s t r u c t o r during 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 strategies. 129 Footnote References \ "hrlarry S. Broudy, " C r i t e r i a f o r the Professional Preparation of Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, XVI (December, 1965), pp.408-15. 2 Thomas S. Kuhn, "Second Thoughts on Paradigms," Princeton University, 1968 (Mmeographed), pp..9-24. %he term s c i e n t i f i c paradigm i s used by Kuhn i n two di f f e r e n t senses. On the one hand, i t stands f o r the entire c o n s t e l l a t i o n of b e l i e f s , values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of the s c i e n t i f i c community. On the other, i t denotes one sort of element i n that c o n s t e l l a t i o n , the concrete puzzle-solutions which are employed as models or exemplars of past achievements. As an example of the second sense of the term, consider the student who i s acquiring the paradigm f=ma (Newton's second lav/). This symbolic generalization takes on di f f e r e n t forms from one problem s i t u a t i o n to the next, and through studying such s i t u a t i o n s , the student learns to design the appropriate version of f=Tna through which to i n t e r r e l a t e the forces, masses, and accelerations p a r t i c u l a r to each s i t u a t i o n . Kuhn argues he does t h i s by discovering 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 to look f o r , s ignaling the Gestalt i n which the s i t u a t i o n i s to be seen. After he has completed a certain number of exemplary problems, the student views the situations that confront him as a s c i e n t i s t i n the same Gestalt. For him they are no longer the same situations he had encountered when h i s t r a i n i n g began. He has meanwhile assimilated a time-tested and group-licensed way of seeing This example i s taken from: Thomas S. Kuhn, the Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions (Chicago, I l l i n o i s : The University of Chicago Press, 1970), pp.188-9. 4 Don E. Dulany, "Awareness, Rules, and Proposltional Control: A Confrontation with S-R Behavior Theory," Verbal Behavior and General Be- havior Theory, ed. T. R. Dixon and D. L. Horton (Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : Prentice H a l l , 1968), pp.340-87. Fishbein has •applied Dulany's theory of proposltional control to s o c i a l behavior and the prediction of 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 : Martin Fishbein, "Attitude and the Prediction of Behavior," Attitude Theory and Measurement, ed. Martin Fishbein (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), pp.487-91. 130 Footnote References. . . Continued ^Fishbein, Attitude Theory and Measurements, pp.389-400. 5 Martin Fishbein, "A Behavior Theory Approach to the Relations between B e l i e f s about an Object and the Attitude toward the Object," Attitude Theory and Measurement, ed. Martin Fishbein (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), pp.389-400. ^Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Function of 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 of Education Evaluation," Teachers College Record, LXVTII (1967), pp.523-40. 8 Q Michael Scriven, "The Methodology of Evaluation," American Educa- t i o n a l Research Association Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, 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 Theoretical Evaluation Model," Manitoba Journal of Educational Research, I (June, 1966), pp.12-17. 12 Charles E. Osgood, George J . Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum, The 1957), PP.1-356. '. "^^william Stephenson, "Correlating Persons Instead of Tests," Character and Personality, VI (1935), pp.17-24. 14 Wilson H. Guertin-and John P. Bailey, J r . , Introduction to Modern  Factor Analysis, (Michigan: Edward Brothers, Inc., 1970), pp.259-434. 15 Fishbein, Attitude Theory and Measurement, pp.389-400. B. 0. Smith, M. Meux, et a l , "A Study of the Strategies of Teach-ing," College of Education, University of I l l i n o i s , 1967 (mimeographed). 17 Fishbein, Attitude Theory and Measurement, pp.389-400. 18 L. W. Doob, "The Behaviour of Attitudes," Psychological Review, LIV, (1947), pp.135-56. 19 Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning, pp.1-30. 20 -R. J . Rhine, "A Concept-Formation Approach to Attitude A c q u i s i t i o n , " Psychological Review, LXV, (1958), pp.362-70. 23 Fishbein, Attitude Theory and Measurement, pp.389-400. 22 I b i d . 131 Footnote References. . . Continued 2^Nancy. Wiggins and Martin Fishbein, "Dimensions of Semantic Space: A Problem of Individual Differences," Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l  Technique, ed. James G. Snider and Charles E. Osgood (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1969), pp.183-93. 24 Stake, Teachers College Record, pp.523-40. 25 Harry S. Broudy, "Levels of Conceptualization i n the S p e c i f i c a t i o n of Educational Objectives," University of I l l i n o i s , (mimeographed), date uioknown. 26 Stake, Teachers College Record, pp.8-9. 27 Robert E. Stake, "The New Countenance on Educational Evaluation," Center f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of I l l i n o i s , 1965 (niimeographed), p.7. ^ I b i d . , p.8. 29 • • Taylor and Maguire, Manitoba Journal of Educational Research, pp.12-17. 30 Scriven,' American Educational Research Association Monograph  Series on Curriculum Evaluation, I , p.56. ^ S t a k e , Teachers College Record, pp.8-9. 32 Osgood, The Measurement of Meaning, pp.19-20; 33 J J I b i d . , pp.53-61. These pages contain a wide sample of the scales defining the factors i s o l a t e d by Osgood. 34 Many investigators have found that scales c l u s t e r i n d i f f e r e n t ways for d i f f e r e n t concepts. Two studies in v e s t i g a t i n g t h i s concept-scale i n t e r a c t i o n are: Harold Gulllksen, "How to 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: Aldine Publishing Co., 1969), pp.89-95, and Donald K. Darnell, "Concept Scale Interaction i n the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l , " Journal of Comniunication, XVT, (1966), pp. 104-15. 35 Spearman, The Nature of Intelligence and the P r i n c i p l e s of  Cognition, (New York: Macmillan Co., 1925). 96 G. H. Thomson, The F a c t o r i a l Analysis of Human A b i l i t y , (London University of London Press, 1939). 37 C. Burt, "Correlation between Persons," B r i t i s h Journal of  Psychology, XXVIII (1937), pp.59-96. 132 Footnote References. . . Continued • Stephenson, Character and Personality, VI, pp.17-24. The most detailed e x p l i c a t i o n of Stephenson's work i s given i n : William Stephenson, The Study of Behaviour: Q-Technique and I t s  Methodology, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953)• 39 Stephen R. Brown, "Bibliography on Q-Technique and i t s Method-ology," Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , XXVT (1968), pp.587-613. 40 Guertin and Bailey, Introduction to Modern Factor Analysis, pp.264-8. I b i d . 42 R. B. C a t t e l l , " r and Other Coefficients of 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 , " Psychological B u l l e t i n , L (1953), pp..456-73. • 44 Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning, pp.39-42. 45 J . Nunnally, "The Analysis of P r o f i l e Data," Psychological •DUX—. - —-i - i i , _ U L ^ I . , ^^.yOc y , ^j^s • • 46 C a t t e l l , Psychometrika, XIV, pp.279-98. 47 Nunnally, Psychological B u l l e t i n , LIX, pp.311-19. 48 Guertin and Bailey, Introduction to Modern Factor Analysis, p.275. 4Q yR. B. C a t t e l l , Factor Analysis, (New York: Harper, 1952), p.101. 5 0 I b i d . 51 Guertin and Bailey, Introduction to Modern Factor Analysis, p.267. 52 Raymond B. C a t t e l l , "The Taxonometric Recognition of Types and Functional Emergents," Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology, ed. Raymond B. C a t t e l l (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966), pp.288-97. ^ j . E. Overall, "Note on Multivariate Methods f o r P r o f i l e Analysis," Psychological B u l l e t i n , LXI, (1961), pp.195-8. 54 J . C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967), pp.335-6. 55 Guertin and Bailey, Introduction to Modem Factor Analysis, p.267. 133 Footnote References. . . Continued ^Nunnally, Psychometric Theory, p.386. 57 Guertin and Bailey, Introduction to 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. ^Robert F. Mager, Developing Attitude Toward learning, (Palo Alto: Fearon Publishers, 1968). Smith, Meux, et a l , "A Study of the Strategies of 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 I b i d . 7 1 I b l d . , p.147. 72 Jerrold R. Coombs and Milton Meux, "Teaching Strategies for Value Analysis," Values Education, ed. Lawrence E. Metcalf, (Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1971), p.29. 7 3Stake, Teachers College Record, pp.523-40. 74 Taylor and Maguire, Manitoba Journal of Educational Research, I, pp.12-17. 7^Smith, Meux, et a l , "A Study of the Strategies of Teaching" (mimeographed), pp.144-7. 134 Footnote References. . . Continued 76 A pre and post SD was administered as part of the evaluation study of the Physics 110 course. One aspect of t h i s study was to determine whether the course was e f f e c t i v e i n making selected SD objects (part-i c u l a r l y PHYSICS and IMF,T,T,ECTUAL EXCITEMENT) move closer together (approach congruity) i n a common semantic space. For t h i s reason the object IJNTELXECTUAL EXCITEMENT was included on the SD, and each object was followed by the same set of scales. 77 See preceeding footnote. 7ft Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning, pp.146-53. 79 The term "factor" Is often used f o r convenience, whether the context i s factor analysis c r component analysis. 80 Examples of studies using p r i n c i p a l components and varimax analysis are: V i r g i n i a A. Clark and Jean S. Kerrick, "A Method f o r Obtaining Summary Scores from Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Data," The Journal  of 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 Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York C i t y , February 5th, 1971. O-l Ledyard R. Tucker, "Some Mathematical Notes on Three-Mode Factor Analysis," Psychometrika. XXXI (September, 1966). pp.279-311. 82 Murray S. Miron and Charles E. Osgood, "Language Behavior: The Multivariate Structure of Q u a l i f i c a t i o n , " Handbook of Multivariate  Experimental Psychology, ed. Raymond B. C a t t e l l , (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966), 790-987 Kaiser, "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 Strategic Use of Factor Analysis," Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology, ed. Raymond B. C a t t e l l (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966), pp.205-6. 85 Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning, pp.31-75. 86 The course rationale includes a statement of the.cognitive as w e l l as the a f f e c t i v e general purposes of the course. While the cognitive goals of the course may i n i t i a l l y appear to be of no di r e c t concern wi t h i n the Procedure ( i . e . to the problem of i d e n t i f y i n g teaching strategies directed at a f f e c t i v e goals) these cognitive goals do serve the Procedure i n three capacities. F i r s t , they enable a comparison to be made between the r e l a t i v e importance of the cognitive and a f f e c t i v e goals of the course. For example, i n the Physics 110 course rationale an a f f e c t i v e goal 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 cognitive goals at the same time serves to c l a r i f y both sets of statements. For example, the Physics 1 1 0 course wanted students to f e e l ( i . e . a f f e c t i v e goals) that physics was a "power-f u l way to understand a wide range of natural phenomena," but i t was not an expectation of the course that students be able to explain (cognitive goal) a l l of these same phenomena through the use of physics. And t h i r d , as Fishbein's theory pointed out, the a c q u i s i t i o n of a f f e c t i v e responses occurs i n conjunction with cognitive learning. Therefore a d e f i n i t i o n of the cognitive expectations of the course defines the cognitive context i n which the a f f e c t i v e goals are to be addressed. For example, a course interested i n the theory of l i g h t and not i n the theory of e l e c t r i c i t y would necessarily i l l u s t r a t e the "explanatory power of physics" through examples drawn from phenomena r e l a t i n g to 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 or magnetism.' 8 7See footnote 7 6 . 8 8 Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning, p . 8 3 . 8 9 J b i d . , p p . 3 8 - 9 . 9°Ibid., p p . 1 3 8 - 9 . 9 1 I b l d . , pp.141-6. 9 2 I b i d . , p . 1 9 4 . 9 3 " U a t t e l l , "The Meaning and Strategic Use of Factor Analysis," Handbook of Multivariate -Experimental Psychology. 94 Martin Fishbein, "A Consideration of B e l i e f s , and t h e i r Role i n Attitude Measurement," Attitude Theory and Measurement, ed. Martin F i s h -bein (New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1 9 6 7 ) , p p . 2 5 8 - 6 0 . 9 5 S t a k e , Teachers College Record, pp.523-40. 96 Taylor and Maguire, Manitoba Journal of Educational Research, p p . 1 2 - 1 7 . 97 Osgood, Suci, 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: Aldine Publishing Co., 1 9 6 9 ) , p p .8 5 - 8 . 9 8 A comprehensive discussion of the L i k e r t and Thurstone tech-niques i s found i n A. L. Edwards, Techniques of Attitude Scale  Construction, (New York: Appleton-Century Crofts Inc., 1 9 5 7 ) 5 p p . 1 - 2 5 6 . 1 3 6 Footnote References. . . Continued 99 Guertin and Bailey, Introduction t o Modem Factor Analysis, pp.419-34. "^Coombs and Meux, Values Education, pp.29-74. 101 Broudy, Journal of Teacher Education, p.410. 137 BIBLIOGRAPHY Broudy, Harry S. " C r i t e r i a f o r the Professional Preparation of Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, XVT (December, 1965), 408-15.' . "Levels of Conceptualization i n the Spe c i f i c a t i o n of Educational Objectives," University of I l l i n o i s , Date Unknown, (mimeographed). Brown, Roger W. "Is a Boulder Sweet or Sour?", Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l  Technique. Edited by James G. Snider and Charles E. Osgood. Chicago: Aldine Publishing 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. Burt, C. "Correlations Between Persons," B r i t i s h Journal of Psychology, XXVTII (1937), 59-96. C a t t e l l , Raymond B. Factor Analysis, New York: Harper, 1952. . "The Meaning and Strategic use of Factor Analysis," Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. ., M. A. Coulter, and B. Tsujioka. "The Taxonometric Recognition of Types and Functional Emergents," Handbook of Multivariate  Experimental Psychology. Edited by Raymond B. C a t t e l l . Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966. Clark, V i r g i n i a A., and Jean S. Kerrick. "A Method f o r Obtaining Summary Scores from Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Data," The Journal of -Psychology, LXVT (1967), 77-85-Coombs, J e r r o l d R., and Milton Meux. "Teaching Strategies f o r Value Analysis," Values Education. Edited by Lawrence E. Metcalf. Washington, D.C.: National Council f o r the S o c i a l Studies, 1971-Cronbach, 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 , " Psychological B u l l e t i n , L (1953), 456-73-Darnell, Donald K. "Concept Scale Interaction i n the Semantic Differen-t i a l , " Journal of Communication, XVI, (1966), 408-15. Doob, L. W. "The Behaviour of Attitudes," Psychological Review, LIV (1947), 135-56. Dulany, Don E. "Awareness, Rules and Propositional Control: A Confron-t a t i o n with S-R Behaviour Theory," Verbal Behaviour and General  Theory. Edited by T. R. Dixon and D. L. Horton. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice H a l l , 1968. 138 Fishbein, Martin. "A Behaviour Theory Approach to the Relations between B e l i e f s about an Object and the Attitude toward the Object," Attitude and Behaviour Theory. Edited by Martin F i s h -bein. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1967. . "A Consideration of B e l i e f s , and t h e i r Role i n Attitude Measurement," Attitude Theory and Measurement. Edited by Martin Fishbein. New York: John Wiley and Sons-Inc., 1967. . "Attitude and the Prediction Behaviour," Attitude Theory and Measurement. Edited by Martin Fishbein. . New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1967. Guertin, Wilson H., and John P. Bailey, J r . Introduction to Modern Factor  Analysis. Michigan: Edwards Brothers, Ine., 1970. Gulllksen, Harold. "How to Make Meaning More Meaningful," Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Technique. Edited by James G. Snider and Charles E. Osgood. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1969. Kaiser, H. F. "A Second-Generation L i t t l e J i f f y , " Psychometrika, XXXV (1970), 401-16. Kuhn, Thomas S. "Second Thoughts on Paradigms," Princeton University, 1968. (mimeographed). . "Tne Function of 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. Edited by A. C. Crombie. New York: Basic Books Inc., • 1961. _. The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions. Chicago, I l l i n o i s . The University of Chicago Press, 1970. Mager, Robert F. Developing Attitudes Toward Learning. Palo A l t o : Fearon Publishers, 1968. Miron, Murray S., and Charles E. Osgood. "Language Behaviour: The Multivariate Structure of Q u a l i f i c a t i o n , " Handbook of M u l t i - variate Experimental Psychology. Edited by Raymond B. C a t t e l l . Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966. Nunnally, J . C. "The Analysis of P r o f i l e Data," Psychological 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 at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York C i t y , February 5th, 1971. 139 Osgood, Charles E., George J . Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum. The Measure- ment of Meaning. Chicago, I l l i n o i s : University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1957. . O v e r a l l , J . E. "Note on Mul t i v a r i a t e Methods f o r P r o f i l e Analysis," Psychological B u l l e t i n , LXI (1961), 195-8. Rhine, R. J. "A Concept-Formation Approach to Attitude A c q u i s i t i o n , " Psychological Review, LXV, (1958), 362-70. Scriven, Michael. "Methodology of Evaluation," American Educational Research, Association Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, I. Chi cago: Rand McNally, 196 7. Smith, B. 0., M. Meux, et a l . "A Study of the Strategies of Teaching," Urbana, I l l i n o i s : College of Education, University of I l l i n o i s , 1967. (mimeographed). Spearman, C. The Nature of Intelligence and the P r i n c i p l e s of Cognition. New York: Macmillan Co., 1925. Stake, Robert E. "The Countenance of Educational Evaluation," Teachers  College Record, LXVTII (1967), 523-40. . The New Countenance on Educational Evaluation. Centre f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Stephenson, William. "Correlating Persons instead of Tests," Character  and Personality, VI (1935), 17-24. . The Study of Behaviour: Q-Technique and I t s Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949. Taylor, Peter A., and Thomas 0. Maguire. "A Theoretical Evaluation Model," Manitoba Journal of Educational Research, I (June, 1966), 12-17. Thompson, G. H. The F a c t o r i a l Analysis of Human A b i l i t y . London: Univ-e r s i t y of London Press, 1939. Tucker, Ledyard R. "Some Mathematical Notes on Three-Mode Factor Analysis," Psychometrika, XXXI (September, 1966), 279-311. Wiggins, Nancy, and Martin Fishbein. "Dimensions of Semantic Space: A Problem of Individual Differences," Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Tech- niques . Edited by James G. Snider and Charles- E. Osgood. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1969. 140 APPENDIX A THE PHYSICS 110 COURSE RATIONALE 141 I. COURSE DESCRIPTION The course under o v e r a l l evaluation by the Project i s described below: T i t l e of the course: Prerequisite f o r taking the course: Enrollment: Time allotment to course components: Course examinations: Textbooks: Physics 110, Sections I and I I I (Mechanics, E l e c t r i c i t y , and Atomic Structure). High-school physics grade 11, or 11 and 12, no r e s t r i c t i o n as to qu a l i t y of high-school physics grades, beyond a passing grade. Section I: 419 students (vocational i n t e r e s t s indicated p r i o r to course: 2 physics, 35 sciences other than physics, 59 engineering, 85 medicine, 67 others, 105 undecided). Section I I I : 213 students (vocational inte r e s t s indicated p r i o r to course: 3 physics, 19 sciences other than physics, 26 engineering, 29 medicine, 26 others, 64 undecided). Lectures (3 hours/week), Tut o r i a l s (1 hour/week), Laboratory (1.5 hours/ week). Midterm 1 and 2; Christmas; F i n a l ; Laboratory grades; T u t o r i a l grades; (Home assignments). Section I: J . Orear, Fundamental Physics 2nd e d i t i o n . J . Orear, Programmed  Manual of College Physics (optional) Section I I I : F. M i l l e r , J r . , College  Physics 2nd e d i t i o n . 142 Instructors: 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 Faculty and Teaching Assistants In charge: W. Westphal Laboratory: Sections I and I I I : 26 Teaching Assistants In charge: G. Page Lecture and T u t o r i a l Section I: Kinematics: P a r t i c l e Content: Dynamics; Gravitation; Energy; Elec-- t r o s t a t i c s ; Electromagnetism; Special R e l a t i v i t y ; Wave Motion and Light; Quanta and Atomic Structure; Nuclei. Section I I I : Kinematics; P a r t i c l e Dynamics; Gravitation; 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 Optics; Quanta and Atomic Structure; Nuclei. Laboratory Experiments: Time - Pendulums; Energy; Spectroscopy and Quantizations; Introduction to the Oscilloscope; Detection and Properties of Radiation; E l e c t r i c . C i r c u i t s . 1 4 3 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. The laboratory is operated independent of the course design. It is therefore considered as an independent sub-course and has been' only partially included in 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 in 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 in the biosciences, medicine, and geology), c) Students whose future work will , i f at a l l , be only indirectly related to physics ("non-science" students such as in 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 first part of the rationale deals with aspects and goals directly related to physics, and with differences in the approach taken in 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 is independent of the aspects given 144 below. I enjoy physics, and w i l l attempt to make physics Interesting  and enjoyable to the students of t h i s course. This i s my main motivation f o r teaching physics. 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 objective way  of t e s t i n g f o r i t s achievement, I nevertheless regard I t as a  legitimate basis .for teaching. From the viewpoint of teaching t h i s course physics i s seen i n three aspects: 1) Physics Is a powerful way to understand a wide range  of natural pheneomena. 2) Physics i s needed as a basis fo r working i n science, technology, and, to some extent, i n medicine. 3) Physics i s an enterprise of society with important  implications f o r human welfare. Relevance of these aspects to the d i f f e r e n t student groups Aspect 1: Physics i s a powerful way to understand a wide range of natural phenomena. The course w i l l attempt to show, preferably on the basis of I n t u i t i v e (anschaulich) i n s i g h t , supported by everyday experiences, .structures•in and commonalities between natural phenomena. The concepts "model" and "law" w i l l be d i s t i l l e d from these discussions. The course w i l l have had di r e c t experience. I t w i l l be shown that  a few basic laws are s u f f i c i e n t to r e l a t e and thereby understand  a vast amount of experiences. In conjunction with the laboratory, i t w i l l be shown that by experimentation and observation struc-tures i n nature can be found, and that experiences of t h i s kind 145 are basic f o r acquiring s c i e n t i f i c knowledge about nature. This aspect of the course i s considered to be very important to 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 exper- iences, and who are able to see the beauty of a l o g i c a l structure  i n nature. Students of group (a): For those interested i n t h i s aspect and approach, a po s i t i v e attitude toward t h e i r future work i n science  i s expected. Students of group (c): The approach taken should give t h i s group some understanding of s c i e n t i f i c thought and possibly some apprec- i a t i o n of physics as being more than merely concerned with solving contrived and t r i c k y problems. I t i s hoped that students to whom science does not strongly appeal w i l l nevertheless r e a l i z e that physics can be in t e r e s t i n g . To some extent, the course might demystify some misconceptions about natural phenomena. One r e s u l t  would be the student's delight i n understanding something previously  unrelated, 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 goal of t h i s course. The student-faculty r a t i o i s too high to allow f o r the feedback required to accomplish t h i s goal. 146 Although i n my personal experience, s c i e n t i f i c thought transfers to my thinking outside of science, I do not expect t h i s transfer ef f e c t to be achieved by many students i n a single physics course. This course does not aim s p e c i f i c a l l y at t h i s side e f f e c t . I t i s frequently stated that a science curriculum should provide the educated c i t i z e n with a background f o r understanding or even making decisions about matters concerned with science, technology, or science education. In my opinion, t h i s goal Is too ambitious f o r a course of t h i s kind. One would have to r e l a t e frequently to current events i n science such as those published i n magazines and newspapers. This time consuming approach has to be s a c r i f i c e d f o r a more thorough treatment of 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 of physics w i l l , however, only be treated occasionally. Students of group (b): To some extent, the goals stated f o r groups (a) and-(c) also apply to group (b). Aspect 2: Physics i s needed as a basis f o r work i n science, technology, and, to some extent, i n medicine. Students of group (a): A working knowledge of basic physics con-cepts, laws, and procedures i s required f o r t h e i r future professions. These w i l l be exenp l i f i e d i n selected areas of physics. Under- standing p r i n c i p l e s i s of primary importance. S p e c i f i c knowledge 147 and s k i l l s needed In t h e i r professions w i l l be taught i n sub-sequent courses anyway. In t h i s course, problem solving w i l l be regarded as a means to  obtain a f e e l i n g of how physics works rather than to teach how to work i n physics. Analyzing a problem s i t u a t i o n f o r the relevant physics needed to 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 situations and the conceptual model being used to deal with them w i l l be stressed. 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 often an i m p l i c i t part of the course than an e x p l i c i t teaching goal. The course w i l l not deal with applications of physics. 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 dealt with 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 hopefully give encouragement to 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 solving techniques,  graphing, experimenting, are seen as valuable tools f o r students of t h i s group. The laboratory part of 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 desirable, f o r p r a c t i c a l reasons as w e l l as f o r motivation, to deal with physics applications i n areas of the 148 vocational i n t e r e s t s of these students. For t h i s purpose, the course would have to be divided i n t o sub-courses, and outside speakers should be involved. Limitations beyond the instructor's control make t h i s l i n e of approach Impossible. Students of group (c): The aspect under discussion does- not re l a t e to t h i s group. Aspect 3: Physics i s an enterprise of society closely related to human welfare. This aspect i s equally 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 goal of t h i s course. Applications" of physics would have to be taught to exemplify t h i s aspect. How-ever, occasions giving an opportunity f o r discussion w i l l d e f i n i t e l y be used t c deal with the mutual r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of science and society. Although i t might happen accid e n t a l l y , no dir e c t attempt w i l l be made to improve the public image of s c i e n t i s t s . While t h i s might be done by teaching the hist o r y of physics, i t i s not regarded as an objective of t h i s course. Difference i n emphasis given in'Sections I and I I I of Physics 110 In Section I , the f i r s t aspect of physics given above w i l l be more strongly emphasized than i n Section 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 of 149 the concept "law", or the re 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 topics selected, e.g., tr e a t i n g r e l a t i v i t y at the expense of applied e l e c t r i c i t y . The text (Orear) has been chosen according to these aims. The advantage of this.approach i s seen i n the brpader scope of concepts offered. There w i l l be the r i s k that without s u f f i c i e n t practice with solving problems, some students might not obtain an i n t u i t i v e understanding of the subjects taught. Esp 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 adjusting to the differences between high-school physics and the s t y l e and content of t h i s course. Section I I I w i l l be closer to the approach taken i n high-school, Although the main goal w i l l be, as i n Section I , an understanding  of p r i n c i p l e s . Part 2: Objectives independent of subject matter Exams and motivation The North American system of education leans heavily on motivating students by continuous grading. Therefore, students are highly examination-oriented. They are forced to dir e c t t h e i r attention prima r i l y to grades, genuine interest and d i v e r s i t y are of second-ary importance. 150 This course cannot exclude grading as i t has to f i t i n t o the univ e r s i t y system. I t w i l l , however, t r y to de-enphasize exams as f a r as possible, and to make the best use of the exams as a teaching t o o l i n addition to t h e i r evaluation purpose. For reducing the examination pressure, a grading system w i l l be used that allows the student to f a i l one or two of the four courae examinations without endangering his f i n a l grade. 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 clos e l y as possible along the l i n e s of the course rat i o n a l e . This i s done to avoid a mis-match between the aims of the students and the goals of the i n s t r u c t o r . Special consideration w i l l be given to the f i r s t course examination, and care w i l l be taken to maintain the same approach throughout the course. A compromise w i l l have to be found between achieving t h i s goal and the technical problems of. grading. I t would be desirable to eliminate student competition from t h i s course j as the students have dif f e r e n t high-school backgrounds. This could be done by s e t t i n g objective standards, known to the students, instead of using a f l o a t i n g standard derived 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 to promote uniformity. To make the exams of the course less uniform, choices between d i f f e r e n t types of 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 , of d i f f e r e n t kinds of students. No standard-type multiple-choice exams w i l l be given. The large number of students involved p r o h i b i t s o f f e r i n g the'choice between wri t t e n and o r a l exams. Student involvement An attempt w i l l be made to stimulate student i n i t i a t i v e and part- . i c i p a t i o n i n making decisions about the conduct of the course. Students comments and suggestions w i l l be asked f o r , verbally and by questionnaires. Part of the feedback w i l l come from the instruments designed f o r the educational study of t h i s course. Care w i l l be taken to make the students aware of the fact that they a c t u a l l y have an influence on t h i s course. Besides the actual purpose of obtaining 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 motivation towards taking t h i s course i s expected to increase from these experiences even though most students are part of a captive audience. Secondly, i t i s hoped that t h i s experience w i l l encourage them, generally, to 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 environment. 152 APPENDIX B THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL INSTRUMENT 153 PHYSICS EDUCATION EVALUATION PROJECT The purpose of t h i s study Is to measure your perception of certain concepts r e l a t e d to physics and physics courses, by having you judge these concepts against a series of descriptive scales. You are •asked to make your judgments pn the basis of 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 influence your grades i n t h i s course. You w i l l f i n d the concepts to be judged i n bold face l e t t e r s . For example, REGISTRATION AT U.B.C. Below t h i s headline concept are a series of descriptive scales against which you w i l l judge the concept. An example of a descriptive scale i s chaotic == == == == == == == ordered I f you f e e l that the headline concept i s very closely, related to 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 quite closely related to one or the other end of the scale (but not extremely), you should respond: chaotic == "» == == == == == ordered . or chaotic == == == == == »•» == ordered 154 I f the headline concept seems only s l i g h t l y related to one side as opposed to the other side (but i s not r e a l l y n e u t r a l ) , then you should respond: chaotic == == "» =- == == == ordered or chaotic == == == == «•» ~ == 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 scale seem most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the thing you are judging. I f you consider the object to be neutral on the scale, both sides of the scale equally associated with the object, or i f the scale i s com-pl e t e l y i r r e l e v a n t , unrelated to the object, then you should respond i n the middle space: chaotic == == == «"» == — == ordered IMPORTANT: (1) Be sure to respond to every scale f o r every concept. (2) Do not make more than one response on a given scale. (3) Respond using the p e n c i l provided. Work at a f a i r l y r apid pace. Do not puzzle over i n d i v i d u a l items. Give your f i r s t impressions, the immediate "fe e l i n g s " about the items. On the other hand, please do not be careless, because i t i s your true impressions that are important. Below i s part of a sample page f o r you to f i l l i n f o r practice. Do not spend more than a few seconds marking each scale. Your f i r s t Idea i s what i s wanted. You can work fast e r i f you do the following: 155 F i r s t , form a picture i n your mind of the headline concept ( i n t h i s case "University learning"). Then, read each scale 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 society == == == == == == == harmful f o r society . 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 DIRECTIONS: Make your mark as long as the pair of lines, and completely fill in the area between the pair of lines. If you change your mind, erase your first mark COMPLETELY. important :rrr: not applicable : r : : : beneficial for society -----passive : : : r= never inte!-ectually exciting -oriented toward principles mysterious r : ; i : valuable zzzzz small efficient --—= not needed by society -----challenging good _ miraculous dead z - z z -intuitive weak never fun nice moving iould be guided by society : : : : : rewarding difficult interesting opportunity for initiative zzzzz tricky 2.-,zzz discouraging never dull beautiful slow clarifies wide meaningless unnecessary ICS unimportant applicable harmful for society sometimes intel-lectually exciting oriented toward facts understandable worthless large inefficient needed by society not challenging bad rational alive theoretical strong always fun awful still should not be guided by society unrewarding easy not interesting no opportunity for initiative straight forward encouraging always dull ugly fast complicates narrow meaningful necessary REGISTRATION NUMBER .JL .JL .JL .JL 0 o 0 important not applicable beneficial for society passive never intel-lectually exciting oriented toward principles mysterious valuable small efficient not needed by society challenging good . miraculous . dead -intuitive . weak . never fun . should be guided by society rewarding difficult interesting opportunity for initiative tricky discouraging never dull beautiful slow clarifies wide meaningless 15 7 'innccessary . . . ! . . 2 .JL „A. 5 .6.'. 7 .JL .J._ _.3_ 4 5 6 7 8 9 . J . . 3 . A . -JL .JL 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 . 6 J... 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 __4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 unimportant applicable ' harmful for . society : : : : : active • sometimes intel- • ----- Icctually exciting oriented toward . facts understandable " worthless • : : : : : large Inefficient needed by society" : r : : r n o t challenging • bad rational -alive -theoretical • Strong always fun awful -should not be guided by society ™ : : : : : unrewarding • : : r : : e3SY zzzzz n o t iR'eiesting • no opportunity „ r for initiative straight forward ™ : : : : : encouraging ulways dull • : : : : : "3'y ™ rr ; : : f n s ' ™ : : : : : complicates *• znarrow °* ----- meniiiiKjhil *• necessary Name. Last First TEST NUMBER SHEET NUMBER DIRECTIONS: Make your mark as long as the pair of lines, and completely fill in the area between the pair of lines. If you change your mind, erase your first mark COMPLETELY. 1ATURAL PHENOMENA important : : : : : not applicable i z : : : beneficial for society passive zizzz never intel* actually exciting oriented toward principles -----mysterious valuable small ~zz~-efficient - - z z z not needed by society -~zzz challenging --=--good mirapulous dead intuitive weak never fun nice moving lould be guided by society rewarding difficult interesting opportunity for initiative zzzzz tricky discouraging — - -never dull beautiful slow clarifies wide meaningless unnecessary unimportant applicable harmful for society active sometimes intel-lectually exciting oriented toward facts understandable worthless large inefficient needed by society not challenging bad rational alive theoretical Strong always fun awful still should not be guided by society unrewarding easy not Interesting no opportunity for initiative straight forward encouraging always dull ugly fast complicates narrow meaningful necessary REGISTRATION NUMBER .0. .0. .0. 0 0 0 0 ..4. .4. .4. 4 4 4 4 ._5_. . 5 . . . 5 . .5 5 5 5 ..6 . -6. J L A. 6 ..?.. _7_ 7 1 7 J L 9 9 not applicable beneficial for society never intel-lectually exciting oriented toward principles valuable efficient not needed by society --' challenging --good miraculous dead --• intuitive . . . weak never fun . . . nice --. moving . . . should be guided by society rewarding ---difficult . . . interesting . . . opportunity fo>" initiative- ~~: tricky discouraging- — never dull — beautiful slow clarifies — wide — meaningless i 15 ^ unnecessary applicable harmful for society sometimes intel- « • loctualiy exciting _ oriented toward -• facts m understandable " worthless " large " inefficient " needed by society™ not challenging ~ bad rational • alive " theoretical " strong • always fun ™ awful *" still should not be _ guided by society unrewarding easy not interesting no opportunity — for initiative — straight forward ™" encouraging always dull ™" ugly fast ~ complicates ™" narrow meaningful ~ necessary ™" Name Last First TEST NUMBER SHEET NUMBER DIRECTIONS: Make your mark as long as the pair of lines, and completely fill in the area between the pair of lines. If you change your mind, erase your first mark COMPLETELY. REGISTRATION NUMBER __Q_. 1 -3.. .A.. . 5.. -6. . 7 .0.. .J__ 2 3 4 5 6 7 ..P.. 1 2 . .3. _4 . A . .6. 7 ..P.. _ _1 _ 4 5 6 7 0 1 _ 2 3 4 5 6 _ 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 important not applicable : : : : : beneficial for society passive never intel-ectually exciting oriented toward principles mysterious valuable — - -small efficient = : = I -not needed by society -----challenging - — -good -----miraculous dead intuitive weak never fun nice moving ihould be guided by society : : : : : rewarding difficult interesting opportunity for initiative tricky — = -discouraging -----never dull — - -beautitul stow clarifies wide meaningless unnecessary i i : unimportant applicable harmful for society active sometimes intel-lectually exciting oriented toward facts understandable worthless large inefficient needed by society not challenging bad rational theoretical strong always fun should not be guided by society unrewarding easy not Interesting no -opportunity for initiative straight forward encourag ing always duit ugly fast complicates narrow meaningful necessary P H Y S I C S I N S T R U C T O important not applicable beneficial for society passive never intel-lectually exciting oriented toward principles mysterious valuable small efficient not needed by society challenging good miraculous dead intuitive weak never fun moving L-_zzz should be guided by society r e w a r d i n g zzzzz d i f f i c u l t ; ; - : z i n t e r e s t i n g --_zzz o p p o r t u n i t y f o r initiative tricky ; : : : : (iiSClllll"'*11.!'1".' zzzzz n e v e r d u l l -_:zzz b e a u t i f u l S l o w c i i i r i f i c s w i d e - - z m e a n i r . g l e s s 159 u n n e c e s s a r y ; ; : : : unimportant applicable harmful for • society u zz-zzz active sometimes intel- ------ Icctually exciting u oriented toward • facts u zzzzz understandable " worthless * large " ----- inefficient " neededi by society" not challenging bad rational " ----- alive " theoretical " strong • always fun awful " still should not be m I I : : : guided by society _ , — unrewarding " easy " not interesting • no opportunity . : : : : : f 0r initiative : : : : : straight forward : : : : : encouraging : : : : : always dull " : : : : : u9'v ----- fast complicates " nnriow " "zzz ineon'nrjful " necessary Name. Last First TEST NUMBER SHEET NUMBER DIRECTIONS: Make your mark as long as the pair of lines, and completely fill in the area between the pair of lines. If you change your mind, erase your first mark COMPLETELY. REGISTRATION NUMBER 2. . .3 . .£.. 5 . .6. .9. 2. ...3. .A. 'J: . .6 . 7 . . 8 . 2. . .3 . .A. . .5. . .6 . ..7.. 2 . .3. .A.. ..5. 7 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8_ 9 2 3 __4_ 5 6 J.. 8 9 2 3 4 5 ' 6 7 8 9 Important : not applicable ; beneficial for . society -never intci-ictualiy exciting -oriented toward _ principles : mysterious : small Z"zz efficient not needed by society challenging good mirapulous dead -----intuitive weak never fun nice moving hould be guided by society : i z : : rewarding difficult interesting opportunity for initiative tricky discouraging -----never dull beautiful slow clarifies wide meaningless unnecessary 1JCP TOWAiD P H Y S K unimportant applicable harmful for society sometimes intel-lectually exciting oriented toward facts : r : : ; understandable zzzz: worthless large zzzzz inefficient ----- needed by society z;:=i n o t challenging ----- bad ----- rational a ' ' v e - theoretical strong always fun awful should not be --zzz guided by society ----- unrewarding zzzzz e a s y n o t interesting no opportunity (or initiative straight forward zzzzz encouraging ----- always dull : : : : : ----- fast r ; : r : complicates narrow zzzzz meaningful necessary 160 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 I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Problem Solving I I I I I ' I I I (?) I I I . IV IV - I 3. Natural Phenomena I I I I I I I I I - I I I IV IV 4. I n t e l l e c t u a l Excitement I I I I I I I I I I I - I 5. My Previous Physics , I I Course I I I I I I I (?) IV ' TV 6. My Previous Physics I I Instructor I I - I I I I I 17 IV I I I 7. My Expectations I I I I Toward Physics 110 • I I - I I I I I I 162 GROUP A VARIMAX FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR ALL CONCEPTS CONCEPT NO. 1: PHYSICS FACTOR I (13.68?) .816 interesting - not interesting • .694 always fun - never fun .643 rewarding - unrewarding .640 important - unimportant .591 never dull - always dull .590 sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting .510 valuable - worthless .499 challenging - not challenging .409 opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative .379 encouraging - discouraging .358 nice - awful .351 alive - dead .347 good - bad .321 beautiful - ugly .306 clarifies - complicates FACTOR I I (9.68?) .693 large - small .675 strong - weak .585 wide - narrow .558 moving - s t i l l .521 alive - dead .520 active - passive .447 efficient - inefficient .427 good - bad .363 beautiful - ugly .315 fast - slow FACTOR I I I (8.52?) •735 straight forward - tricky .689 easy - difficult .619 clarifies - complicates .562 understandable - mysterious .522 encouraging - discouraging .469 rational - miraculous .388 meaningful - meaningless .348 never dull - always dull 163 CONCEPT NO. 2: PROBLEM SOLVING FACTOR I (12.10%) .7^6 important - unimportant .731 valuable - worthless .683 necessary - unnecessary .624 needed by society - not needed by society .579 b e n e f i c i a l f o r society - harmful f o r society .517 meaningful - meaningless .486 e f f i c i e n t - i n e f f i c i e n t .460 applicable - not applicable .446 challenging - not challenging .317 rewarding - unrewarding .313 b e a u t i f u l - ugly . 301 active - passive FACTOR I I (7.11%) .696 understandable - mysterious .651 easy - d i f f i c u l t .612 straight 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 - discouraging .296 applicable - not applicable FACTOR I I I (9.07%) .711 wide - narrow .705 strong - weak '.677 large - small .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 fast - slow .342 active - passive .325 good - bad .310 nice - awful FACTOR IV (12.08%) .707 always fun - never fun .699 Interesting - not i n t e r e s t i n g 164 FACTOR IV (12.08%) .653 never d u l l - always d u l l .607 rewarding - unrewarding .586 encouraging - discouraging •.581 nice - awful .511 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 .437 challenging - not challenging .412 c l a r i f i e s - complicates .403 moving - s t i l l .394 a l i v e - dead .358 good - bad I65 CONCEPT NO. 3: NATURAL PHENOMENA FACTOR I (10.27%) .781 strong - weak .673 large - small .658 alive - dead .652 wide - narrow .578 moving - s t i l l .546 fast - slow .429 beautiful - ugly .428 . efficient - inefficient .396 active - passive FACTOR I I (7.39%) .737 understandable - mysterious .723 straight forward - tricky .571 rational - miraculous .496 easy - difficult .486 clarifies - complicates .387 applicable - not applicable FACTOR I I I (7.36%) .714 Interesting - not Interesting .525 sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting .465 important - unimportant .465 meaningful - meaningless .455 never dull - always dull .441 opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative .352 necessary - unnecessary .298 applicable - not applicable FACTOR IV (9.91%) .636 beneficial for society - harmful for society .618 valuable -.worthless. .614 good - bad .605 needed by society - not needed by society .563 rewarding - unrewarding .418 necessary - unnecessary .417 always fun - never fun .402 nice - awful .369 encouraging - discouraging .312 efficient - inefficient .307 beautiful - ugly .320 should be guided by society - should not be guided by society CONCEPT NO. 4: IMELLECTUAL EXCITEMENT FACTOR I (12.25?) .647 large - small .642 wide - narrow .628 strong - weak .596 fast - slow .592 moving - s t i l l .550 alive - dead .543 beautiful - ugly .463 nice - awful .402 good - bad .392 efficient - inefficient .349 always fun - never fun .339 active - passive .333 meaningful - meaningless .306 never dull - always dull FACTOR I I (7.34?) .644 straight forward - tricky .586 understandable - mysterious .540 easy - difficult .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 rewarding - unrewarding .638 challenging - not challenging .631 interesting - not interesting .595 opporunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative .524 valuable - worthless .463 meaningful - meaningless -.458 important - unimportant . 4 l l necessary - unnecessary .383 should be guided by society - should not be guided by society .377 active - passive .377 always fun - never fun .358 needed by society - not needed by society .350 good - bad • 335 beneficial for society - harmful for society .316 straight forward - tricky 167 CONCEPT NO. 5: MY PREVIOUS PHYSICS COURSE FACTOR I (29.55?) .857 valuable -. worthless .820 i n t e r e s t i n g - not i n t e r e s t i n g .813 rewarding - unrewarding .772 challenging - not challenging .729 important - unimportant .723 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 .717 meaningful - meaningless .710 necessary - unnecessary .663 good - bad .658 applicable - not applicable .605 e f f i c i e n t - i n e f f i c i e n t .596 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 .595 a l i v e - dead .589 active - passive .566 never d u l l - always d u l l .559 moving - s t i l l .530 nice - awful .520 needed by society - not needed by society .458 strong -- weak .450 b e n e f i c i a l f o r society - harmful f o r society .409 encouraging - discouraging .382 understandable - mysterious .353 c l a r i f i e s — complicates .350 b e a u t i f u l - ugly .303 fast - slow .301 r a t i o n a l - miraculous .372 easy - d i f f i c u l t FACTOR I I (9-64?) .757 straight forward - t r i c k y .715 understandable - mysterious .694 easy - d i f f i c u l t .618 encouraging - discouraging .601 c l a r i f i e s - complicates .409 r a t i o n a l - miraculous .355 always fun - never fun .328 meaningful - meaningless .306 nice - awful 168 FACTOR III (4.40%) .614 t h e o r e t i c a l - i n t u i t i v e .429 b e n e f i c i a l f o r society - harmful f o r society .361 needed by society - not needed by society .303 oriented towards p r i n c i p l e s - oriented towards facts .324 always fun - never fun .339 never d u l l - always d u l l FACTOR IV (10.02%) .651 large - small .621 wide - narrow .612 fast - slow .533 strong - weak .514 b e a u t i f u l - ugly .509 moving - s t i l l .371 active - passive .347 good - bad .345 nice - awful .400 r a t i o n a l - miraculous 169 CONCEPT NO. 6: MY PREVIOUS PHYSICS INSTRUCTOR FACTOR I (36.63%) " .845 interesting - not interesting .827 valuable - worthless .818 efficient - inefficient •779 good - bad .769 sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting .762 important - unimportant .749 alive - dead •735 active - passive .730 never dull - always dull .729 needed by society - not needed by society .715 challenging - not challenging .705 clarifies - complicates .703 encouraging - discouraging .699 necessary - unnecessary .689 rewarding - unrewarding .674 moving - s t i l l .648 always fun - never fun .632 strong - weak .631 beneficial for society - harmful for society .592 opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative .589 understandable - mysterious .520 fast - slow .508 nice - awful .410 beautiful - ugly .371 applicable - not applicable .318 wide - narrow FACTOR I I (8.19%) .734 easy - difficult .687 straight forward - tricky .552 understandable - mysterious .452 encouraging - r discouraging .431 clarifies - complicates .389 nice - awful .309 beautiful - ugly .306 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. fast - slow .399 moving - s t i l l .398 always fun - never fun .351 rewarding - unrewarding .345 nice - awful .306 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 .360 should be guided by society - should not be guided by society FACTOR IV (4.11%) .625 t h e o r e t i c a l - i n t u i t i v e .454 r a t i o n a l - miraculous .326 oriented towards p r i n c i p l e s - oriented toward facts .317 applicable - not applicable .301 never d u l l - always d u l l 171 CONCEPT NO. 7: MY EXPECTATIONS TOWARD PHYSICS 110 FACTOR I (21.91?) .785 valuable - worthless .7^9 important - unimportant .714 necessary - unnecessary .675 i n t e r e s t i n g - not i n t e r e s t i n g .658 rewarding - unrewarding .654 applicable - not applicable . .653 challenging - not challenging .627t meaningful - meaningless .611* needed by society - not needed by society .608 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 .582 e f f i c i e n t - i n e f f i c i e n t .565 always fun - never fun .540 b e n e f i c i a l f o r society - harmful f o r society .510 a l i v e - dead .493 good bad .477 active - passive .438 nice - awful .387 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 .347 large - small .341 encouraging - discouraging .338 c l a r i f i e s - complicates .315 never d u l l - always d u l l .311 nKiving — s t i l l FACTOR I I (12.36?) .756 easy - d i f f i c u l t .742 straight 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 fun - never fun .340 Interesting - not i n t e r e s t i n g .321 should be guided by society - should not be guided by society 172 FACTOR I I I (10.93?) .699 wide - narrow .660 strong - weak .633 fast - slow .586 moving - s t i l l .574 large - small .560 a l i v e - dead .536 b e a u t i f u l - ugly .432 nice - awful ,4l6 good - bad .368 active - passive .314 always fun - never fun GROUP B VARIMAX FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR AIL CONCEPTS CONCEPT NO. 1: PHYSICS FACTOR I (15.64%) .773 always fun - never fun .739 Interesting - not interesting .722* never dull - always dull .697 nice - awful .580 moving - s t i l l .564 fast - slow .562 opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative .558 alive - dead .555 beautiful - ugly .507 sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting .501 encouraging - discouraging .458 active - passive .441 meaningful - meaningless .351 easy - difficult FACTOR I I (8.46%) .605 large - small .481 good - bad .478 strong - weak .451 valuable - worthless .429 alive - dead .400 beneficial for society - harmful for society .400 applicable - not applicable .386 wide - narrow .383 active - passive .375 rewarding - unrewarding .372 important - unimportant .365 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 initiative - no opportunity for initiative .534 . active - passive .513 rewarding - unrewarding .474 encouraging - discouraging .459 sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting .442 fast - slow .407 beautiful - ugly .320 easy - difficult .312 meaningful - meaningless .304 clarifies - complicates .301 applicable - not applicable FACTOR I I (9-92?) .702 needed by society - not needed by society .692 understandable - mysterious .583 necessary - unnecessary .494 beneficial for society - not beneficial for society .486 valuable - worthless .443 rational - miraculous .399 clarifies - complicates .363 efficient - inefficient .304 important - unimportant FACTOR I I I (7-33?) .572 challenging - not challenging .563 valuable - worthless .480 important - unimportant .458 necessary - unnecessary .396 rewarding - unrewarding .316 applicable - not applicable .590 straight forward - tricky .619 easy - difficult 176 FACTOR IV (8.37%) .779 large - small .705 strong - weak .644 wide - narrow .438 good - bad .407 alive - dead .403 active - passive .377 beautiful - ugly .333 moving - s t i l l .<3l8 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 understandable - mysterious .679 straight forward - tricky .621 rational - mysterious .534 clarifies - complicates .418 easy - difficult FACTOR I I I (8.63%) •753 sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting .518 interesting - not interesting .502 opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative .486 important - unimportant .465 applicable - not applicable .442 never dull - always dull .419 encouraging - discouraging .399 valuable - worthless .361 active - passive >'354 meaningful - .meaningless .331 always fun - never fun FACTOR IV (10.43%) .701 beneficial for society - harmful for society .693 good- bad .568 rewarding - unrewarding .558 needed by society - not needed by society .532 necessary - unnecessary .519 valuable - worthless .509 encouraging - discouraging 178 FACTOR IV (10:4335) .504 nice - awful .359 b e a u t i f u l - ugly .320 always fun - never fun .303 e f f i c i e n t - i n e f f i c i e n t CONCEPT NO. 4: INTELLECTUAL EXCriEMENT FACTOR I (16.44?) .732 valuable - worthless .717 rewarding - unrewarding .640 interesting - not interesting .627 needed by society - not needed by- society .621 beneficial for society - harmful for society .592 necessary - unnecessary .554 important - unimportant. .532 meaningful - meaningless .515' never dull - always dull .511 good - bad .496 challenging - not challenging .484 encouraging - discouraging .462 opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative .441 always fun - never fun .433 alive - dead .389 active - passive .310 applicable - not applicable FACTOR I I (10.91?) r70"l o + - - v o ^ \ > n T . T O «->1v .618 fast - slow .593 large - small .580 wide - narrow .569 moving -? s t i l l .557 beautiful - ugly .503 nice - awful .477 alive - dead •395 always fun - never fun .368 easy - difficult .349 encouraging - discouraging .343 straight forward - tricky •335 good - bad .302 active - passive FACTOR III (6.28?) .707 rational - miraculous .442 challenging - not challenging .424 understandable - mysterious .421 efficient - inefficient .391 opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative 180 FACTOR I I I (6.28%) .374 wide - narrow .3^9 t h e o r e t i c a l . - i n t u i t i v e • 322 large - small .304 meaningful - meaningless CONCEPT NO. 5: MY PREVIOUS PHYSICS COURSE FACTOR I (24.76%) .812 never dull - always dull .784 always fun - never fun .754 nice - awful .750 rewarding - unrewarding .740 interesting - not interesting .673 moving - s t i l l .660 alive - dead .611 good - bad .608* encouraging - discouraging .606 sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting .581 opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative .576 active - passive •575 clarifies - complicates .567 meaningful - meaningless .556 strong - weak .528 challenging - not challenging .481 beautiful - ugly .441 necessary - unnecessary .437 efficient - inefficient .425 fast - slow .419 valuable - worthless .346 understandable - mysterious . 314 large - small FACTOR I I (8.35%) .832 straight forward - tricky .785 easy - difficult .601 understandable - mysterious .483 encouraging - discouraging .457 clarifies - complicates .381 ' rational - miraculous .315 efficient - inefficient FACTOR I I I (13.93%) .682 Important - unimportant .678 applicable - not applicable .651 needed by society - not needed by society .648 valuable - worthless .616 necessary - unnecessary .505 meaningful - meaningless .502 good - bad .487 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 large - small .582 wide - narrow .485 strong - weak .456 beautiful - ugly .364 should be guided by society - should not be guided by society .343 fast - slow .295 moving - s t i l l 183 CONCEPT NO. 6: MY PREVIOUS PHYSICS INSTRUCTOR FACTOR I (38.37%) . 8 6 5 interesting - not interesting . 8 3 6 never dull - always dull . 8 1 0 good - bad . 8 0 9 necessary - unnecessary . 7 8 3 meaningful - meaningless . 7 7 5 valuable - worthless .774 rewarding - unrewarding-. 7 6 8 < sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting .766" challenging - not challenging . 7 6 5 always fun - never fun .746 encouraging - discouraging .734 active - passive .704 alive - dead .703 nice - awful .701 needed by society - not needed by society .672 efficient - inefficient . 6 7 0 moving - s t i l l .670 clarifies - complicates . 6 5 6 beneficial for society - harmful for society .642 important - unimportant .627 opportunity for initiative - not opportunity for initiative .552 strong - weak .480 applicable - not applicable .464 understandable - mysterious .429 fast - slow .411 beautiful - ugly . 3 6 3 wide - narrow .417 should be guided by society - should not be guided by society FACTOR I I (7*49%) .792 easy - difficult .724 straight forward-- tricky .459 understandable - mysterious .403 clarifies - complicates .356 encouraging - discouraging FACTOR I I I ( 5 . 6 8 % ) . 6 3 9 oriented towards principles - oriented towards facts . 5 0 0 rational - miraculous . 4 1 8 wide - narrow . 3 7 4 applicable - not applicable . 3 6 5 theoretical - intuitive . 3 0 1 needed by society - not needed by society 1 8 4 FACTOR IV (6.30%) .803 large - small .524. strong - weak .511 fast - slow .367 wide - narrow •324 active - passive CONCEPT NO. 7: MY EXPECTATIONS TOWARD PHYSICS 110 • FACTOR I (15.66?) .692 encouraging - discouraging .675 easy - difficult .662 straight forward - tricky .608 nice - awful .581 beautiful - ugly .566 always fun -never fun .5^ 9 never dull - always dull .539 meaningful - meaningless .525 clarifies - complicates .519 alive - dead .469 strong - weak .464 moving - s t i l l .441 understandable - mysterious .428 fast - slow .413 interesting - not interesting .394 active - passive .377 good - bad .317 wide - narrow FACTOR I I (11.50?) .656 important - unimportant .603 large - small .577 strong - weak .567 needed by society - not needed by society •553 beneficial for society - harmful for society .536 applicable - not applicable .512 valuable - worthless .473 good - bad .453 necessary - unnecessary .430 wide - narrow .4.12 efficient - inefficient .355 active - passive .329 rational - miraculous FACTOR I I I (13.08?) .725 rewarding - unrewarding .640 interesting - not interesting .585 sometimes intellectually exciting - never intellectually exciting .563 opportunity for initiative - no opportunity for initiative .556 moving - s t i l l .555 challenging - not challenging .545 valuable - worthless 186 FACTOR I I I (13.08?) .475 always fun - never fun .438 applicable - not applicable .413 e f f i c i e n t - i n e f f i c i e n t .409 never d u l l - always d u l l .360 nice - awful .354 a l i v e - dead .343 rneaningful - meaningless .328 necessary - unnecessary .300 active - 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. Ei t h e r the value object, or the value term, or both, are named or i d e n t i f i e d . In the case of the value object being a report or action, i t may be given or performed. 2. Description Moves 2.1 E x p l i c a t i o n of Value Object 2.11 Description A description of the a t t r i b u t e s , Properties, etc.,of the value object. When the value object i s an argument or proposition, t h i s may include discussion of the premises, assump-t 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 of some more general descriptive (not normative) class of things. 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 . , involves a d i f f e r e n t value term)the r a t i n g which forms the main point of the discussion. 2.14 Instance Comparison Instances of the value object are compared i n order to 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 object. 1 8 9 2.2 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Relational Properties 2.21 Consequences A description of the consequences, products, actions, outcomes, etc., of the value object. 2.22 Origins A description or discussion of the antecedents, o r i g i n s , causes or reasons f o r the value object. 2.3 Instance Description An instance, or subclass of the value object i s named or described. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , o r i g i n s , consequences, etc., may be mentioned. 3. Rating Moves 3.1 Rating of the Value Object The value object which forms the center of the discussion i s rated as to i t s value. 3.2 Rating of Characteristics Some ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s or r e l a t i o n a l property (consequence or or i g i n ) of the value object i s rated as to i t s value. 3.3 Instance Evaluation Some Instance, or subclass of the value object Is rated as to i t s value. The Instance may be eit h e r r e a l 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 of Value Term A description or discussion of the evaluative force, or meaning of the value term. 4.2 C i t i n g C r i t e r i a A standard or r u l e , or some set of alterna-t i v e standards or r u l e s , by which a r a t i n g of the value 190 object can be made, are stated or discussed. There may, or may not be discussion of the r e l a t i v e importance of a l t e r -native standards or rules. 4.3 Substantiation of C r i t e r i a Evidence or reasons f o r or against some rule or standard f o r r a t i n g the value object, are given or discussed. 4.4 Irrelevance of Value Term The irrelevance of the value term, or some or a l l of the c r i t e r i a f o r the value term, i s asserted or discussed. Or i t i s asserted that the value term cannot be applied because of the lack of appropriate evidence. Relational Moves 5.1 Explanation of Discordant Characteristics Evidence or explanation i s given to indicate 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 with a previous r a t i n g , should be discounted or ignored. 5.2 C i t i n g an Alternative Value Object An object, p r a c t i c e , reason, etc., having a value r a t i n g d i f f e r e n t from the value object under consideration i s c i t e d or discussed. This alternative value object may be r e a l or hypothetical. 5.3 C i t i n g an Authority The opinion or conclusions of some authority such as a public figure or textbook w r i t e r are c i t e d as evidence f o r or against a r a t i n g of the value object. . Any discussion of the c r e d i b i l i t y , or expertness of such an authority, i s also included i n t h i s move. 191 5.4 Implication 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 effects as other objects which have an opposite r a t i n g . 5»5 Analogy The value object i s likened to another object customarily believed to be either good or bad, or widely practiced. Evidence may or may not be given to support the analogy. Tangential Evidence 6.1 Facts, b e l i e f s , etc., which are relevant to the value object, but not d i r e c t l y relevant t o the r a t i n g of the object, are • ci t e d or discussed. (Also included i n t h i s category are moves i n which a value object, other than the one which i s • central to the discussion, i s rated, apparently because of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, e t c . ) . 192 APPENDIX E DOCUMENTATION OP THE PROFILE ANALYSIS PROGRAM 193 Description of the P r o f i l e Analysis Program The program begins by performing a p r i n c i p a l axes analysis on a c o r r e l a t i o n matrix. The co 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 indices of the s i m i l a r i t y of shape of the subjects' p r o f i l e s of scores. The i n i t i a l communality estimates placed i n the diagonal of the c o r r e l -a t ion matrix are the largest 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 correspond-i n g matrix columns. P r i n c i p a l axes are extracted and the number of p r i n c i p a l axes rotated to the Varimax c r i t e r i o n i s equal to that integer nearest to the smaller of the two numbers N and M: N = (NV)** X 1.5 CUT M = the number of eigenvalues where NV = the number of subjects and CUT = a parameter set by the user whose values can range between 0.0 and 2.0. Personal correspondence with Wilson H. Guertin determined that the basis f o r N was "purely empirical" and seemed to define an appropriate number of factors i n "most" problems. The varimax factors obtained i d e n t i f y clusters of p r o f i l e s s i m i l a r on the basis of shape. Each of these shape factors i s now considered separately. The p r o f i l e s whose factor loading exceeds the value CUT X .5 on the factor are i d e n t i f i e d , and a "d-analysis" of t h i s "shape family 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 calculated for these p r o f i l e s as outlined 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 rotated to the varimax c r i t e r i o n . (The rules f o r s e l e c t i n g the 194 number of p r i n c i p a l axes.to rotate are the same as i n the factor analysis of the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix). The varimax factors separate the group of p r o f i l e s of s i m i l a r shape i n t o subgroups on the basis of l e v e l and d i s -persion. The modal pattern f o r each of these d-analysis varimax factors i s calculated from a weighted average of the scores on p r o f i l e s loading higher than CUT X .5 on the factor. These modal patterns are printed 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 to define the modal pattern. In addition, the d value between t h i s modal pattern 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 factors are independently analyzed by applying the•d-analyses procedure outlined above to p r o f i l e s with loadings ex-ceeding CUT X ,5j the d-analysis procedure i s repeated on each shape factor 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 with highly negative loadings on a factor would i d e a l l y be mirror images of those with highly p o s i t i v e loadings on the same factor. I f there are n shape factors therefore, 2n d-analyses are performed. Prom each d-analysis i s derived a number of modal patterns, or "types" of subjects equal to the number of varimax factors i d e n t i f i e d . These modal patterns are a l l printed i n summary fashion by the program, as are the raw score weights used i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of each modal pattern and the d values between each subject's p r o f i l e and each modal pattern. 195 CONTROL CARDS FOR THE PROFILE ANALYSIS PROGRAM Order of Control Cards 1) RFS card 2) $SIG idno 3) Password $RUN GUERTIN.0 5=*SOURCE*+DATA GUERTIN.0 i s the object deck. Logical unit 5 expects to read: a) the t i t l e card b) .parameter card c) (rotation card - optional) d) format card e) data cards f ) $END - l o g i c a l unit 6 The output defaults to t h i s unit. I t defaults to *SINK* or a f i l e could be specified. - l o g i c a l unit 3 This unit stores the data. I f a scratch f i l e i s spe 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 . - l o g i c a l unit 9 An option i s Included i n t h i s program to allow the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix to be printed on l o g i c a l unit 9. 5) $SIG 196 Description of Control Cards 1) T i t l e card A maximum of 80 characters i s allowed. 2) Parameter card (* indicates the default i f nothing i s punched on the parameter card.) FORMAT (1015,2P10.-7) Column Variable Name N 1-5 6-10 NAME 15 IDIAG 20 ICORR 25 Description Number of subjects Maximum of 200 Number of variables Maximum of 50 Both N and L must be GT 0 or the program w i l l terminate. * 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 printed i n the summary * 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 correct with ones along the diagonal) Determines whether or not a cor r e l a t i o n matrix i s t o be printed and where i t i s to be printed. * printed on l o g i c a l unit 6 =1 printed on l o g i c a l unit 6 and saved on l o g i c a l unit 9 =2 saved on l o g i c a l unit 9 =3 not written or saved 197 Determines the number of factors to be rotated. * uses the formula NRO = MINO(NRO,NZ) GT 0 I t uses t h i s value f o r the f i r s t number of factors t o be rotated and expects to read a card i n 2013 format containing the number of factors to be rotated f o r each family shape. LT 0 This value i s used for.the number of factors to be rotated from the i n i t i a l p r i n c i p a l axis factor matrix and then the formula NRO = MTNO (NR0,NZ) i s used f o r the number of factors to be rotated f o r each family shape. * scores are retained as read i n 7*0 scores are scaled to standard scores as soon as they are read i n Number of format cards to be read i n Maximum of 5 * defaults to 1 * cards are not punched. But "weighted means.on the variable f o r the patterns" i s always punched on unit 7 7*0 cards are punched * flows through the whole program =1 calculates and p r i n t s out the co r r e l a t i o n matrix and then stops =2 calculates and p r i n t s out the co r r e l a t i o n 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. * defaults to 1. C r i t e r i o n value f o r diagonalization of the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix. * defaults to 0.1 Trie smaller the value of ACC the more calculations the program has to do. I t determines the stringency f o r diagonalization of the co 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 to read i n a card contain-ing the number of factors to be used i n each r o t a t i o n f o r each shape family pattern. One f o r p o s i t i v e factors and one f o r the number of negative factors f o r each family shape. FORMAT (2013) 4) Format card May take up to 5 cards. The data must be read i n one subject/ format card. The program, expects to 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 to be read i n at a l l . 5) $END 199 T A B L E 7 PRINTED OUTPUT OF THE PROFILE ANALYSIS COMPUTER PROGRAM A. Correlation Analysis 1 . Mean scores of the variables on the p r o f i l e s . 2 . Standard deviations of the variables 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 axis factors of the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix. 5. Eigenvalues of the cor r e l a t i o n matrix. 6. Varimax factors of the co r r e l a t i o n matrix. 7. Sum of the squared loadings of the p r o f i l e s w i t h i n each varimax factor. 8 . Sum c f the squared loadings f o r each p r o f i l e over the varimax factors. 9 . Total sum of the squared.loadings and the percentage of t o t a l variance accounted f o r by the varimax factors. B. Distance Analysis (repeated for each shape family) 1. P r o f i l e numbers of the members of the shape family. 2 . S i m i l a r i t y matrix of the shape family. 3 . P r i n c i p a l axis factors of the s i m i l a r i t y matrix. H. Eigenvalues of the s i m i l a r i t y matrix. 5. Varimax factors of the s i m i l a r i t y matrix. 6. Sum of the squared loadings of the p r o f i l e s w i t h i n each variance factor. 2 0 0 TABLE 7 - Continued 7. Sum of the squared loadings f o r each p r o f i l e over the varimax factors. CUT 8. P r o f i l e numbers of p r o f i l e s loading highly (greater than - 5 — ) on varimax factor 1. CUT 9. I n t e r p r o f i l e distances f o r p r o f i l e s loading highly (greater than —p— ) on varimax factor 1. 10. Distances between each p r o f i l e and the modal pattern representing varimax factor 1. 11. Variable weights f o r modal pattern 1. 12. Weighted mean scores f o r modal pattern 1. (8-12 are repeated f o r each varimax fact o r of the s i m i l a r i t y matrix) C. Summary Data 1. Distance between each p r o f i l e and each modal pattern. 2. Weighted mean raw scores f o r each modal pattern. 3. Variable weights f o r each modal pattern. 4. A second-order d-analysis of the modal patterns. 201 $ L I S T G U E R T I N 1 C E D 7 7 7 - P R 0 F I L E A N A L Y S I S P A C K A G E 2 C P R O F I L E A N A L Y S I S P A C K A G E BY G U E R T I N - C O L L E G E OF E D U C A T I O N - U N IV 3 C 1 0 0 S U B J E C T - 1 5 0 V A R I A B L E MAXIMUMS OF F L A . 4 C PROGRAM L I S T 5 C MA I N - T R R - I D E N T - S 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 6 C O U T F L - C N T R L - D S Q - T R D S Q - M O D E S - M A T C H - O U T M C H - W P Q U T - O U T W P - O U T P C H 7 C T H E R E ARE 21 PROGRAMS IN A L L I N C L U D I N G MAIM 8 C 9 C A L P H A B E T I Z E D S U B R O U T I N E S 1 0 C I D E N T - J A C O B I - C N T R L - D S Q - F A R F - M A T C H - M U D E S - M T T O U T - M U L T R - O U T F L -11 C - O U T P C H - O U T M C H - C J U T S S - O U T W P - - R O T A T E - S S C N V - T R D S G - T R R - W P O U T 12 . C 13 C T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S 1 4 C 15 C MAIN -DUMMY - ( C A L L S T R R ) 16 C 1 7 C TRR - T R A N S P O S E D R ( C A L L S F A R F ) 18 C I D E N T 1 9 C S S C N V 2 0 C O U T S S 21 C 2 2 C F A R F - F A C T O R A N A L Y S I S AND R O T A T E ( C A L L S C N T R L ) 2 3 C M T T O U T 2 4 C MULTR 2 5 C J A C O B I 2 6 C R O T A T E 2 7 C 28 C C N T R L - C O N T R O L ( C A L L S D S Q ) ( A L S O C A L L S WPOUT AT ENO) 2 9 C 3 0 C DSQ - ( C A L L S F A R F W ITH KENT = 1 ) 31 C T R D S Q 3 2 C F A R F - S A M E F A C T O R A N A L Y S I S WITH K E N T = 1 ( C A L L S MODES ) 3 3 C MULTR 3 4 C J A C O B I 3 5 C R O T A T E 3 6 C O U T F L 3 7 C 38 C MODES - ( C A L L S M A T C H ) ( A L S O C A L L S C N T R L FOR N E X T F A M I L Y ) 3 9 C 4 0 C MATCH - G E T S P A T T E R N S ( R E T U R N S T O M O D E S ) 41 C OUTMCH 4 2 C 4 3 C WPOUT - W R I T E S AND P U N C H E S SUMMARY ( R E T U R N S TO DSQ FOR S E C O N D -4 4 C OUTWP O R D E R ) 4 5 C O U T P C H 4 6 C 4 7 C 48 C MAIN PRGM 4 9 C MAIN USED FOR C A L L I N G T R A N S P O S E D R ( T R R ) 5 0 C A L L TRR 51 RETURN 5 2 END 5 3 C 5 4 C 5 5 S U B R O U T I N E TRR 202 3D U IKMINirU^CU K UttLLO t AKf W i l l i ;»U VAIO AN U £ U U iUOJCU I i 5 7 C 5 8 C 5 9 I N T E G E R#2 K L S T R S 6 0 0 D I M E N S I O N R ( 2 C 0 , 2 0 0 ) , F M E A N ( 2 0 0 ) , S I G I 2 0 0 ) , S C O R E S ( 2 0 0 , 5 0 ) , 61 L K L S T R S ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , F M T ( 1 0 0 ) , D U M M ( 1 0 G ) 6 2 0COMMON R, F M E A N , S I G , S C O R E S , K L S T R S , N , L , K E Y , N 7 , C U T , 6 3 1, A V D S Q , NOCf M V A L , I I , MM2, M T O T , N P C H . U U M M J V A L , KL1 . 6 4 C 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 NAMES AND 6 5 C TO H A V E ONES IN T H E D I A G O N A L CF T H E C O R R E L A T I O N 6 6 C M A T R I X 6 7 R E A L * 8 V A R N M ( 2 0 0 ) 68 C THE V A R I A B L E NAME SHOULD BE R E A D IN IN A FGRMAT 6 9 C AND MAY H A V E A MAXIMUM OF 8 C H A R A C T E R S 7 0 COMMON / I N P U T / N A M E , I D I A G , I C O R R , I R O T , A C C , J R O T ( 2 0 ) 7 1 E Q U I V A L E N C E ( F M T , S I G ) 7 2 1 WR ITE (6,6666) 7 3 6 6 6 6 OFORMAT ( 1 H 1 , / / T 3 5 , ' U N I V E R S I T Y OF F L O R I D A E D U C A T I O N A L E V A L - 5 7 4 11B R A R Y ' / T 4 8 , ' P R O F I L E A N A L Y S I S P A C K A G E • / T 5 L , ' W I L S O N " ' 7 5 2 T I N ' , / / / T 4 5 , • V E R S I O N 1 / 1 / 7 0 ' / / T 4 6 , • S E E - E D P S Y C H M E A S , 1 9 6 6 , 7 6 MTOT = 0 '. P 1 5 1 * : 7 7 J V A L = 0 7 8 C A L L I D E N T ( 1 ) 7 9 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 8 0 5 F O R M A T ( 9 1 5 , 2 F 1 0 . 7 ) 8 1 C N = NUMBER OF S U B J E C T S MAXIMUM IS 2 0 0 8 2 C L = NUMBER OF V A R I A B L E S MAXIMUM IS 5 0 8 3 C NAME = 0 E A C H S U B J E C T IS A S S I G N E D A C O N S E C U T I V E NUMBER ACCt 8 4 C TO THE WAY T H E C A R D S WERE I N P U T RDINC 8 5 C 1 V A R I A B L E NAMES ARE R E A D IN FOR E A C H S U B J E C T 8 6 C MAXIMUM L E N G T H FOR E A C H NAME IS E I G H T C H A R A C T E R S 8 7 C ID I AG - 0 I F WANT MAXIMUM A B S O L U T E ROW V A L U E FOR THE DI AGON/ 8 8 C = 1 I F WANT ONES IN D I A G O N A L OF C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X 8 9 C ICORR = 0 WR ITE OUT C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X ON LU 6 9 0 C 1 ON L U 6 AND S A V E D ON LU 9 91 C 2 P R I N T E D ON L O G I C A L U N I T 9 9 2 C 3 NOT W R I T T E N 9 3 C IROT = 0 NRO IS F O R M U L A USED FOR NUMBER OF F A C T O R S TO BE R01 9 4 C >0 I R O T = NUMBER OF F A C T O R S T O BE R O T A T E D A T E L 9 5 C T H E ARRAY J R O T C O N T A I N S THE NUMBER OF F A C T O R S TO 9 6 C R O T A T E D A F T E R T H E F I R S T R O T A T I O N B E 9 7 C <0 I ROT= NUMBER OF F A C T O R S TO B E R O T A T E D 9 8 C K E Y = 0 DOES 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 ( S C A L E D 9 9 C NFMT = NUMBER OF FORMAT C A R D S - HAS MAXIMUM OF T E N DATA.) 1 0 0 C R E S E T TO 1 IF READ IN AS 0 101 C N P C H = 0 NO PUNCHED O U T P U T OF SUMMARY R E S U L T S WANTED 102 C C U T = CUT O F F L I N E - IF ZERO IT IS C H A N G E D TO 1 . 0 1 0 3 C A C C D E T E R M I N E S S T R I N G E N C Y FOR D I A G O N A L I Z I N G T H E C O R R E L A T I O N 1 0 4 C I F 0 . 0 C H A N G E D TO l . E - 1 M A T R I X 1 0 5 I F ( I R O T . L E . O ) GO TO 9 9 1 1 0 6 R E A D ( 5 , 5 5 ) J R O T 1 0 7 55 F O R M A T ( 2 0 1 3 ) 108 9 9 1 C O N T I N U E 1 0 9 IF ( C U T . E O . 0 . 0 ) C U T = 1 . 0 1 1 0 REWIND 3 111 WR ITE ( 3 ) K E Y 1 1 2 IF ( N F M T . E Q . 0 ) NFMT = 1 1 1 3 NFMT = 2 0 * N F M T x A 1 1 4 I F ( N . G T . O ) GO TO 7 " rY.20 115 6 WRITE (6, 8 ) ' b U 203 l i b b hUKMAI l ^ JH.dN'JMBfcK. Uh b U b J t t l b = U1 1 1 7 GO TO 2 0 0 0 1 1 8 7 . I F ( L . G T . O ) GO TO 10 1 1 9 9 WR ITE ( 6 , 1 1 ) 1 2 0 11 FORMAT ( 2 4 H 2 N U M B E R OF V A R I A B L E S = 0 ) 121 GO T O 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 WR ITE ( 6 , 1 2 ) N» L , C U T 1 2 3 12 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 — / / 10X21HNUMBER OF SUB~ 1 2 4 1 r 13 / / 9 X t 2 2 H N U M B E R OF V A R I A B L E S = , I 3 / / 1 7 H 0 P R E C I S ION CUT 1 2 5 2 F 5 . 2 ) I S , 1 2 6 I F ( A C C . E Q . O . O ) A C C = 1 . E - 1 1 2 7 READ ( 5 , 1 6 ) ( F M T ( I ) , I = 1 , N F M T ) 128 16 FORMAT ( 2 0 A 4 ) 1 2 9 I F ( N A M E . N E . 0 ) GO TO 9 9 1 3 0 R E A D { 5 » F M T ) ( ( S C O R E S ( I , J ) , J = l , L J f I = l t N ) 131 GO TO 98 132 9 9 R E A D ( 5 , F M T ) ( V A R N M ( I ) , ( S C O R E S ( I , J ) , J = I , L ) , 1 = 1 , N ) 1 3 3 9 8 DO 888 I = 1 , N 1 3 4 DO 8 8 8 J = 1 , N 1 3 5 8 8 8 • R( I , J ) = 0 . 0 1 3 6 DO 7 7 7 I = l,N 1 3 7 F M E A N t I ) = 0 . 0 1 3 8 7 7 7 S I G ( I) = 0 . 0 1 3 9 C A L L S S C N V 1 4 0 18 AL = L 141 C B I A S E D E S T I M A T E OF MEANS OF S U B J E C T S ARE C A L C U L A T E D 1 4 2 DO 2 0 I = 1 ,N 1 4 3 DO -19 J = 1 , L . 1 4 4 1 9 F M E A N ( I ) = F M E A N ( I ) + S C O R E S ( I . J ) 1 4 5 2 0 FMEAN ( I ) = F M E A N t I ) / AL 1 4 6 C B I A S E D S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N S OF S U B J E C T S ARE C A L C U L A T E D 1 4 7 DO 26 I = 1,N 1 4 8 DO 2 5 J = 1 , L 1 4 9 2 5 S I G t l ) = S I G ( I ) + S C O R E S ( I , J ) * S C O R E S ( I , J ) 1 5 0 T E S T S = S I G ( I ) / A L - F M E A N ( I ) * F M E A N ( I ) 151 I F ( T E S T S . G T . 0 . ) GO TO 1 0 3 1 5 2 1 0 2 S I G ( I ) = 0 . 0 1 5 3 GO TO 26 1 5 4 1 0 3 S I G ( I ) = S Q R T ( T E S T S ) 1 5 5 2 6 C O N T I N U E 1 5 6 C B I A S E D E S T I M A T E OF C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S BETWEEN S U B J E C T S 1 5 7 DO 50 I = l . N 1 5 8 DO 5 0 M = I , N 1 5 9 DO 5 0 J = 1 , L 1 6 0 5 0 R ( I , M ) = R ( I , M ) + S C O R E S ( I . J ) * S C O R E S ( M T J ) 161 DO 6 0 I = l f N 162 DO 6 0 M = I , N 1 6 3 D I V = S I G ( I ) * S I G(M) 1 6 4 I F J D I V . N E . O . ) GO TO 2 0 9 1 6 5 2 0 2 R( I ,M ) = 0 . 0 1 6 6 GO TO 60 1 6 7 2 0 9 R ( I , M ) •= ( R ( I , M ) / A L - F M E A N ( I ) * F M E A N ( M ) ) / ( S I G ( I ) * S I G ( M ) ) 1 6 8 6 0 C O N T I N U E 1 6 9 DO 7 0 I = 1,N 1 7 0 DO 7 0 -M = I f N 171 . 7 0 R ( M » I ) = R ( I » M ) 1 7 2 I F ( I D I A G . N E . O ) GO TO 9 9 9 9 1 7 3 WR ITE ( 6 , 7 1 ) 1 7 4 71 FORMAT ( 1 H 1 . 2 9 H C 0 R R E L A T I 0 N S BETWEEN S U B J E C T S » • WITH COMMUNAL 1 7 5 1 T I M A T E S IN D I A G O N A L S 8 ) IT Y ES 2 0 4 " J E C T S 1 7 6 GO TO 9998 1 7 7 9 9 9 9 W R I T E ( 6 , 9 9 9 7 ) 1 7 8 9 9 9 7 F O R M A T ( ' 1 « C O R R £ L A T I O N S B E T W E E N S U B J E C T S WITH ONES A L O N G 1 7 9 1 0 N A L ' ) T H E D I A G 1 8 0 9 9 9 8 C A L L F A R F ( 0 ) 181 GO T O 1 182 2 0 0 0 STOP 1 8 3 END 18 4 C 1 8 5 C 1 8 6 S U B R O U T I N E I DENT ( N C O S ) 187 D I M E N S I O N A L P H A ( 2 0 ) 1 8 8 C C A L L E D FROM TRR TO W R I T E OUT T I T L E 1 8 9 2 F O R M A T ( 2 0 A 4 ) 1 9 0 5 FORMAT ( 1 H 0 , / / , 2 0 A 4 ) 191 DO 1 1 = 1 , N C O S 1 9 2 READ ( 5 , 2 , E N D = 9 9 9 8 ) ( A L P H A ( J ) , J = l , 2 0 ) 1 9 3 1 W R I T E ! 6 , 5 I A L P H A 1 9 4 R E T U R N 1 9 5 9 9 9 8 W R I T E ( 6 , 9 9 9 9 ) 1 9 6 9 9 9 9 F O R M A T ( 1 H 0 , / / , T 1 5 , ' E N D OF A L L J O B S * ) 1 9 7 S T O P 1 9 8 END 199 C 2 0 0 C 2 0 1 S U B R O U T I N E S S C N V 2 0 2 I N T E G E R*2 K L S T R S 2 0 3 C C A L L E D FROM TRR 2 0 4 C WR ITES OUT MEANS AND S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N S C F T H E V A R I A B L E S 2 0 5 O D I M E N S I O N 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 ( 2 0 0 , 5 0 ) , 2 0 6 1 2 0 0 ) , O M N f 5 0 ) , D S D ( 5 0 ) K L S T R S ( 2 0 0 ; 2 0 7 • COMMON R , F M E A N , S IG , D A T A , K L S T R S , N , L , K E Y , N 7 , CUT , J V A L , KL I , A VDSQ, 2 0 8 1 M V A L , 1 1 , M M 2 , M T O T , N P C H , D S D , D M N N O C , 2 0 9 D A T A RP / ' ) « / 2 1 0 9 0 AN = N 2 1 1 C DSD C O N T A I N S MEANS OF V A R I A B L E S 2 1 2 DO 110 J = 1 , L 2 1 3 SUM = 0 . 0 2 1 4 DO 100 I = 1 , N 2 1 5 1 0 0 SUM = SUM + D A T A ( I , J ) 2 1 6 1 1 0 D M N ( J ) = SUM / AN 2 1 7 WR ITE ( 6 , 1 2 0 ) 2 1 8 1 2 0 FORMAT ( 1 H 0 , 1 0 X , 5 H M E A N S ) 2 1 9 WR ITE ( 6 , 1 3 0 ) ( J , R P , D M N ( J ) , J = 1 , L ) 2 2 0 C DSD C O N T A I N S S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N S O F V A R I A B L E S 221 DO 150 J = I , L 2 2 2 SSQ = 0 . 0 2 2 3 DO 1 4 0 I = L , N 2 2 4 1 4 0 S S Q = SSQ + O A T A ( I , J ) * D A T A ( I , J ) 2 2 5 DMSQ = SSQ / AN 2 2 6 1 5 0 D S D ( J ) = SORT (DMSQ - D M N ( J ) * D M N ( J ) ) 2 2 7 WR ITE ( 6 , 1 6 0 ) 2 2 8 1 6 0 FORMAT (2 OH O S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N S ) 2 2 9 WR ITE ( 6 , 1 3 1 ) ( J , R P , D S D ( J ) , J = i , L ) 2 3 0 C I F KEY 0 T H E N T H E S C O R E S ARE S C A L E D 2 3 1 I F ( K E Y . N E . O ) GO TO 62 2 3 2 R E T U R N 2 3 3 62 DO 180 J = 1 , L 2 3 4 0 0 180 I = 1 , N 2 3 5 1 8 0 D A T A ( I , J ) = ( D A T A ( I , J ) - D M N ( J ) ) / D S D ( J ) 205 2 3 6 2 1 1 W R I T E ( 6 , 2 1 2 ) 2 3 7 2 1 2 F O R M A T ( 1 H 1 , 1 0 X » 1 7 H Z - S T A N O A R D 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-2 3 8 C A L L O U T S S ( D A T A , N » L ) A B L E S ) 2 3 9 1 0 0 0 R E T U R N 2 4 0 1 3 0 F O R M A T ( 1 0 ( 2 X , I 2 t A l t F 7 . 2 ) ) 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 E N D 2 4 3 C 2 4 4 C 2 4 5 S U B R O U T I N E O U T S S ( R , M , K ) 2 4 6 D I M E N S I O N R ( 2 0 0 , 5 0 ) 2 4 7 C C A L L E D F R O M S S C N V I F K E Y 0 2 4 8 C W R I T E S O U T S T A N D A R D I Z E D S C O R E S 2 4 9 9 1 0 F O R M A T ( 1 H O , 9 X , 1 0 ( 1 1 0 , I X ) ) 2 5 0 9 3 0 F O R M A T ( 2 H , I 5 , I X » F 1 3 . 4 , 9 ( F 1 0 . 4 , I X > ) 2 5 1 C R = N A M E O F M A T R I X , M = N O . O F R O W S ? ' K = N O . O F C O L U M N S 2 5 2 K M A N Y = ( ( ( K - D / 1 0 + 1 ) * 1 0 ) 2 5 3 D O 9 9 5 L 2 = 1 0 , K M A N Y , 1 0 2 5 4 L i = L 2 - 9 2 5 5 L = L 2 2 5 6 I F ( L 2 . E Q . K M A N Y ) L = K 2 5 7 9 9 7 W R I T E ( 6 , 9 1 0 ) ( I , I = L 1 , L ) 2 5 8 D O 9 9 5 I = 1 , M 2 5 9 9 9 5 W R I T E ( 6 , 9 3 0 ) I , ( R ( I , J ) , J = L 1 , L ) 2 6 0 9 9 9 R E T U R N 2 6 1 E N D 2 6 2 C 2 6 3 C 2 6 4 S U B R O U T I N E F A R F ( K E N T ) 2 6 5 I N T E G E R * 2 K L S T R S 2 6 6 O D I M E N S I O N S U M X X ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , S U M D V ( ? 0 0 ) , C ( 2 C C ) , S C O R E S ( 2 0 0 , 5 0 ) 2 6 7 1 K L S T R S ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , A ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , P ( 2 0 0 t 2 0 0 ) , E I G ( 2 0 0 ) 2 6 8 O C O M M O N S U M X X , S U M D V , C , S C O R E S , K L S T R S , N O S , N 5 , N 6 , N R O , 2 6 9 1 J V A L , K L I , A V D S Q , N O C , M V A L , I I , M M 2 , N T O T C U T . 2 7 0 E Q U I V A L E N C E ( S U M X X , P ) 2 7 1 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 , I R O T , A C C 2 7 2 C 2 7 3 J V = J V A L 2 7 4 R C U T = 1 . 0 / C U T 2 7 5 I F ( K E N T . E Q . 0 ) G O T O 4 0 0 5 2 7 6 N V = K L I 2 7 7 ANV = K L I 2 7 8 G O T O 4 0 0 6 2 7 9 4 0 0 5 N V = N O S 2 8 0 A N V = N O S 2 8 1 4 0 0 6 N R O = S Q R T ( A N V ) * 1 . 5 * R C U T 2 8 2 C N F L A M = C U T * S O R T ( A N V ) / 5 . C 2 8 3 I F ( ( N R O - N V ) . L T . O ) GO T O 4 0 5 0 2 8 4 4 0 4 9 N R O = N V - 1 2 8 5 4 0 5 0 DO 1 0 2 0 I = 1 , N V 2 8 6 DO 1 0 2 0 J = 1 , N V 2 8 7 1 0 2 0 A ( I , J ) = S U M X X ( I , J ) 2 8 8 C A L L M U L T R (A, N V , S U M D V ) 2 8 9 I F ( I D I A G . N E - O ) G O T O 9 9 9 8 2 9 0 1 8 0 DO 2 3 0 1 = 1 , N V 2 9 1 2 3 0 P ( 1 , 1 ) = S U M D V ( I ) 2 9 2 9 9 9 8 I F ( K E N T . G T . 0 ) G O T O 4 2 3 1 2 9 3 I F ( I C 0 R R . E 0 . 3 ) G O T O 2 4 1 2 9 4 4 2 3 0 C A L L M T T O U T ( P , N V , N V ) 2 9 5 G O T O 2 4 1 206 2 9 7 2 4 1 C A L L J A C O B K A , N V , 1 , N R 0 T ) 2 9 8 L L L = 0 2 9 9 NZ = 0 3 0 0 DO 2 4 3 1 = 1 , N V 3 0 1 S U M D V ( I ) = P ( I , I ) 3 0 2 E I G ( I ) = S U M D V ( I ) 3 0 3 DO 1 7 2 4 J = l , N V 3 0 4 1 7 2 4 P ( I , J ) = A ( I , J ) 3 0 5 I F ( S U M D V ( I ) . G E . O . ) GO TO 2 4 2 2 3 0 6 2 4 2 1 NZ=NZ+1 3 0 7 GO TO 2 4 2 3 0 8 2 4 2 2 I F ( ( S U M D V t I ) - C N F L A M ) . G E . O . ) GO T O 2 4 3 3 0 9 2 4 2 L L L = L L L + 1 3 1 0 2 4 3 C O N T I N U E 311 N Z = N V - N Z . 3 1 2 2 2 4 I F ( N Z . L E . O ) GO TO 10 3 1 3 5 0 0 C O N T I N U E 3 1 4 1 7 7 4 S U M = . 0 3 1 5 FNV=NV 3 1 6 DO 2 5 0 1 = 1 , N Z 3 1 7 S U M = S U M + S U M D V ( I ) 3 1 8 2 5 0 A ( I , 1 ) = SUM / F N V 3 1 9 DO 2 6 0 1 = 1 , N Z 3 2 0 SUMDV( I ) = S Q R T ( S U M D V ( I ) ) 3 2 1 DO 2 6 0 J = 1 , N V 3 2 2 2 6 0 A ( J , I ) = S U M D V ( I ) * P ( J , I ) 3 2 3 DO 2 5 6 I 3 = 1 , N Z 3 2 4 NMINUS = 0 3 2 5 DO 2 5 2 1 1 = 1 , N V 3 2 6 I F ( A ( 1 1 , 1 3 ) . G E . O . ) GO TO 2 5 2 3 2 7 2 5 1 I M I ' l l l M U O - W i X N U S + 1 3 2 8 2 5 2 C O N T I N U E 3 2 9 I F ( ( N V - 2 * N M I N U S ) . G E . O ) GO TO 2 5 6 3 3 0 2 5 3 DO 2 5 4 1 2 = 1 , N V 3 3 1 2 5 4 A ( 1 2 , 1 3 ) = - A ( I 2 , I 3 ) 3 3 2 2 5 6 C O N T I N U E 3 3 3 WR ITE ( 6 , 9 2 2 ) 3 3 4 9 2 2 F O R M A T ( 1 H 0 / / • P R I N C I P A L A X I S F A C T O R M A T R I X ' 33 5 I F ( K E N T . L E . O ) GO TO 2 0 0 1 3 3 6 4 0 0 9 C A L L O U T F L ( A , N V , N Z , K L S T R S , J V ) 3 3 7 GO TO 2 0 0 5 3 3 8 2 0 0 1 C A L L M T T O U T ( A , N V , N Z ) 3 3 9 2 0 0 5 DO 2 6 7 1 = 1 , N Z 3 4 0 DO 2 6 7 J = 1 , N Z 3 4 1 P ( I , J ) = 0 . 0 3 4 2 DO 2 6 7 K = 1 , N V 3 4 3 2 6 7 P ( I , J ) = P ( I , J ) + A ( K , I ) * A ( K , J ) 3 4 4 N Z P = NZ 3 4 5 N Z = N V - L L L 3 4 6 WR ITE ( 6 , 9 1 8 ) 3 4 7 9 1 8 F O R M A T ( 1 2 H E I G E N V A L U E S ) 3 4 8 WR ITE ( 6 , 9 1 9 ) ( E I G ( I ) , I = 1 , N Z P ) 3 4 9 9 1 9 FORMAT ( 1 1 X , 2 F 1 0 . 2 , 8 ( 1 X , 1 F 1 0 . 2 ) ) 3 5 0 N R O = M I N O ( N R O , N Z ) 3 5 1 I F ( ( N R O * ( 1 - N R O ) ) . L T . O ) GO TO 3 2 5 3 5 2 3 2 0 WR ITE ( 6 , 9 1 1 ) 3 5 3 3 2 5 C A L L R O T A T E ( A , K E N T ) 3 5 4 9 1 1 FORMAT ( 1 H 0 ) 3 5 5 1 0 C O N T I N U E 2 0 7 3 5 6 I F ( K E N T c G T . O ) G O T O 4 1 1 2 3 5 7 4 1 1 1 C A L L C N T R L 3 5 8 4 1 1 2 C A L L M O D E S 3 5 9 R E T U R N 3 6 0 C 3 6 1 E N D 3 6 2 C 3 6 3 C 3 6 4 S U B R O U T I N E M U L T R ( A , N , U ) 3 6 5 D I M E N S I O N U 1 2 0 0 ) , A ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) 3 6 6 C C O M P U T E S H 2 A S H I G H E S T R O W V A L U E 3 6 7 5 0 0 DO 2 2 0 I = 1 , N 3 6 8 A ( I , I ) = 0 . 0 3 6 9 D O 2 1 0 J = 1 , N 3 7 0 I F ( ( A ( I t I ) - A B S ( A ( I , J ) ) ) . G E . 0 . ) G O T O 2 1 0 3 7 1 2 0 5 A ( 1 , 1 ) = A B S ( A ( I , J ) ) 3 7 2 2 1 0 C O N T I N U E 3 7 3 2 2 0 U ( I ) = A< I , I ) 3 7 4 R E T U R N 3 7 5 E N D 3 7 6 C 3 7 7 C 3 7 8 S U B R O U T I N E M T T O U T ( R , M , K ) 3 7 9 D I M E N S I O N R ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) 3 8 0 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 3 8 1 C C A L L E D F R O M F A R F 3 8 2 C P R I N T S O U T C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X B E T W E E N S U B J E C T S 3 8 3 C P R I N T S O U T C O E F F I C I E N T O F F A C T O R S - P R I N C I P A L A X E S F A C T O R 3 8 4 L U = 6 M A T R I X 3 8 5 9 1 0 F O R M A T ( 1 H 0 , 9 X , 1 0 ( 1 1 0 , I X ) ) 3 8 6 9 3 0 F O R M A T ( 2 H , I 5 , l X , F 1 3 . 4 , 9 ( F I 0 . 4 , i X ) ) 3 8 7 C R = N A M E O F M A T R I X , M = N O . O F R O W S , K = N O . O F C O L U M N S 3 8 8 K M A N Y = ( { ( K - U / 1 0 + 1 ) * 1 0 ) 3 8 9 I F ( I C O R R . E Q . 2 ) L U = 9 3 9 0 1 DO 9 9 5 L 2 = 1 0 , K M A N Y , 1 0 3 9 1 L I = L 2 - 9 3 9 2 L = L 2 3 9 3 I F ( L 2 . E Q . K M A N Y ) L = K 3 9 4 9 9 7 W R I T E ( L U , 9 1 0 ) ( I , I = L 1 , L ) 3 9 5 D O 9 9 5 I = 1 , M 3 9 6 9 9 5 W R I T E ( L U , 9 3 0 ) I , ( R ( I , J ) , J = L 1 , L ) 3 9 7 I F ( I C O R R . E Q . 1 . A N D . L U . E Q . 9 ) G O T O 9 9 9 3 9 8 I F ( I C O R R . N E . l ) G O T O 9 9 9 3 9 9 L U = 9 4 0 0 G O T O 1 4 0 1 9 9 9 I C O R R = 0 4 0 2 R E T U R N 4 0 3 E N D 4 0 4 C 4 0 5 C 4 0 6 C 4 0 7 C 4 0 8 S U B R O U T I N E J A C O B I ( B , N , I V , N R ) 4 0 9 D I M E N S I O N A ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , B ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , L K ( 2 0 0 ) , Q ( 2 0 0 ) 4 1 0 C O M M O N A 4 1 1 . 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 4 1 2 I F ( ( I V - 1 J . N E . O ) G O T O 2 0 0 4 1 3 2 0 1 D O 2 0 2 1 = 1 , N 4 1 4 D O 2 0 3 J = 1 , N 4 1 5 2 0 3 B ( I , J ) = 0 . 0 208 4 1 6 2 0 2 B ( I , I ) = 1 . 0 4 1 7 2 0 0 NR=0 4 1 8 Q ( 1 ) = 0 . 0 4 1 9 W = 0 . 0 4 2 0 H = . 5 * A ( 1 , 1 ) * A ( 1 , 1 ) 4 2 1 DO 1 I = 2 , N 4 2 2 H = H + . 5 * A ( I , I ) * A ( I , I ) 4 2 3 Q ( I ) = 0 . 0 42 4 1 1 = 1 - 1 4 2 5 DO 2 J = 1 , I 1 4 2 6 Z = A B S ( A C I , J ) ) 4 2 7 H = H + Z * Z 4 2 8 I F ( Z - Q ( I ) ) 2 , 2 , 3 4 2 9 3 Q ( I ) = Z 4 3 0 L K ( I ) = J 4 3 1 2 C O N T I N U E 4 3 2 • I F ( ( Q { I . ) - W ) . L E . O . ) GO TO 1 4 3 3 4 W=Q( I ) 4 3 4 111 = I 4 3 5 1 C O N T I N U E 4 3 6 H = A C C * S Q R T ( 2 . 0 * H ) / F L O A T ( N ) 4 3 7 3 0 I I = L K ( I I I ) 4 3 8 J J = 1 1 1 4 3 9 X = A ( I I , I I ) 4 4 0 Y = A { J J , I I ) 4 4 1 Z = A ( J J , J J ) 4 4 2 W=X-Z 4 4 3 T = . 5 * ( W + S Q R T t W * W + 4 . 0 * Y * Y ) ) / Y 4 4 4 W = S Q R T { 1 . 0 + T * T ) 44 5 S=T/W 4 4 6 C = 1 * 0 / W 4 4 7 C C = C * C 4 4 8 ss=s*s 4 4 9 S C = S * C * 2 . 0 4 5 0 Q 1 = 0 . 0 4 5 1 Q 2 = 0 . 0 4 5 2 W=0 .0 4 5 3 NR=NR+1 4 5 4 DO 2 7 1 = 1 , N 45 5 I F ( I-II ) 1 0 , 1 . 1 , 1 2 4 5 6 10 U = A ( I I , I ) 4 5 7 V = A ( J J , I ) 4 5 8 E = U * S + V * C 4 5 9 A( I I , I ) = E 4 6 0 I F ( ( A B S ( E ) - Q l J . L E . O . ) GO TO 15 4 6 1 14 Q 1 = A B S ( E ) 4 6 2 11 = 1 4 6 3 15 F = V * S - U * C 4 6 4 A ( J J , I ) = F 4 6 5 I F ( ( A B S ( F ) - 0 2 ) . L E . 0 . ) GO TO 9 4 6 6 16 Q 2 = A B S ( F ) 4 6 7 12 = 1 4 6 8 GO TO 9 4 6 9 11 A( I I , I ) = S S * X + S C * Y + C C * Z 4 7 0 Q ( I ) = Q 1 4 7 1 L K ( I ) = U 4 7 2 GO TO 9 4 7 3 12 I F ( I-JJ ) 1 7 , 1 8 , 1 9 4 7 4 17 U=AC It 11 ) 4 7 5 V = A ( J J , I ) 209 476 E=S*U+C*V 477 A ( l , I I ) = E 478 IF( ( A B S ( E ) - O t l ) J . L E . O . ) GO TO 15 479 21 LK ( I) = 11 480 Q( I ) =ABS(E) 481 GO TO 15 482 18 A(JJ,I)=CC*X-SC*Y+SS*Z 48 3 A ( I , I I ) = 0.0 484 Q(I)=Q2 485 LK(I)=I2 486 GO TO 9 487 19 U=A{1,11) 488 V=A(I,JJ) 489 E=U*S+V*C 490 F=V*S-U*C 491 At I , 11 )=E 492 A ( I , J J ) = F 493 G=AMAX1(ABS(E),ABS(F)) 494 IF((G-Q(I)).LE.O.) GO TO 9 49 5 13 Q( I )=G 496 IF((ABS(E)-ABSIF)).LT.O.) GO TO 23 497 24 LK(I)= I I 498 GO TO 9 499 23 LK( I ) = J J 500 9 IF((Q( I )-W).LT.O.) GO TO 40 501 25 W=Q(I) 502 II 1 = 1 503 40 IF( IV.LE.O) GO TO 27 504 33 U=B( I, 11 ) 505 V=B( I,JJ) 506 B(I,II)=U*S+V*C 507 B(I,JJ)=V*S-U*C 508 27 CONTINUE 509 IF((W-H).GT.O.) GO TO 30 510 31 IF( IV.LE.O) GO TO 55 511 56 DO 50 I = L',N 512 U=-1.E20 513 DO 51 J=I,N 514 IF((A(J,J)-U).LE.O.) GO TO 51 515 52 U=A(J,J) 516 K=J 517 51 CONTINUE 518 IF((K-I).EQ.O) GO TO 50 519 53 A(K,K)=A( I, I ) 520 A ( I , I)=U 521 DO 54 J=1,N 522 U=8(J,K) 52 3 B(J,K)=8(J, I ) 524 54 B(J,I)=U 525 50 CONTINUE 526 55 RETURN 527 END 528 SUBROUTINE ROTATE(A,KENT) 529 INTEGER*2 KLSTRS 530 ODIMENS ION SUMXXt 200,200),H(200),TV(200) ,SC0RES(200,50), 531 . 2KLSTRS(200,2 00),A(200,200),P(200,200), BBC(200) 532 OCOMMON SUMXX,H,TV,SCORES,KLSTRS,NOS,N5, N6,NR0,CUT,JVAL, 533 1KLI,AVDSQ,NOC,MVAL,I I,MM2,MTOT 534 EQUIVALENCE(SUMXX,P),(H,BBC) 535 COMMON /INPUT/NAME,ID I AG,ICORR,I ROT,ACC ,JROT(20) 210 S»36 UA T A IU! / U / 5 3 7 D A T A RP / • ) •/ 5 3 8 I F ( K E N T . G T . O ) GO TO 8 0 2 5 3 9 801 N=NOS 5 4 0 GO TO 8 0 5 5 4 1 8 0 2 N = K L I 5 4 2 J V = J V A L 5 4 3 8 0 5 L=NRO 5 4 4 I F ( I R O T . E Q . O ) GO TO 9 9 5 4 5 I F ( K E N T . E Q . O . A N D . I R O T . N E . O ) GO TO 9 8 5 4 6 I C T = I C T + l 5 4 7 L = J R O T l I C T ) 5 4 8 GO TO 9 9 5 4 9 9 8 L = I A B S ( I R O T ) 5 5 0 I F ( I R O T . L T . O ) I R O T = 0 551 9 9 C O N T I N U E 5 5 2 E P S = 0 . 0 0 1 1 6 5 5 3 P ( l , l ) = 1 . 0 5 5 4 N C O U N T = 0 5 5 5 M M 1 = ( L * ( L - i ) ) / 2 5 5 6 T V ( 1 ) = 0 . 0 5 5 7 L L = L - 1 5 5 8 NV=1 5 5 9 FN=N 5 6 0 F F N = F N * * 2 5 6 1 C 0 N S = 1 . O / S Q R T ( 2 . 0 ) 5 6 2 Z E R 0 = l . E - 4 5 6 3 DO 3 1 = 1 , N 5 6 4 3 H ( I ) = 0 . 0 5 6 5 DO 4 I = 1 , N 5 6 6 DO 4 J = 1 , L 5 6 7 4 H { I ) = H ( I ) + A ( I , J ) * A ( I , J ) 5 6 8 DO 5 I = 1 , N 5 6 9 H ( I ) = S Q R T ( H ( I ) ) 5 7 0 DO 5 J = 1 , L 571 I F ( H ( I ) . G T . O . ) GO TO 5 5 7 2 2 5 A ( I , J ) = 0 . 0 5 7 3 GO TO 2 6 5 7 4 5 A ( I , J ) = A ( I , J ) / H ( I ) 57 5 2 6 C O N T I N U E 5 7 6 222 NV=NV+1 5 7 7 T V ( N V ) = 0 . 0 5 7 8 L V = N V - 1 5 7 9 DO 88 J = 1 , L 5 8 0 A A = 0 . 0 5 8 1 B B = 0 . 0 5 8 2 DO 7 7 1 = 1 ,N 58 3 CC = A ( I , J ) * A ( I , J ) 5 8 4 A A = A A + C C 5 8 5 7 7 B B = B B + C C * * 2 5 8 6 8 8 T V ( N V ) = T V ( N V ) + ( F N * B B - A A * * 2 ) / F F N 5 8 7 I F ( ( N V - S O ) . G E . O ) GO TO 9 9 9 5 8 8 9 I F ( ( A B S ( T V ( N V ) - T V ( L V ) ) - l . E - 6 ) . L E . O . ) GO TO 9 9 9 5 8 9 13 DO 500 J = 1 , L L 5 9 0 1 1 = J + l 5 9 1 DO 5 0 0 K = I I , L 5 9 2 I F ( ( N C O U N T - M M 1 ) . G E . 0 ) GO TO 5 0 0 5 9 3 32 I F ( ( A B S ( P ( 1 , 1 ) ) - Z E R 0 ) . L E . 0 . ) GO TO 14 5 9 4 1 0 NCOUNT = 0 5 9 5 14 A A = 0 . 0 211 J V O BS-U.U 5 9 7 C C = 0 . 0 5 9 8 D D = 0 . 0 5 9 9 DO 15 1 = 1 ,N 6 0 0 U = ( A ( I , J ) + A ( I , K ) ) * ( A ( I , J ) - A I I , K ) ) 6 0 1 T=A ( I, J ) * A ( I , K ) 6 0 2 T = T + T 6 0 3 C C = C C + ( U + T ) * ( U - T ) 6 0 4 D D = D D + 2 . 0 * U * T 6 0 5 AA = AA+ U 6 0 6 15 BB=BB+T 6 0 7 T = D D - 2 . 0 # A A * B B / F N 6 0 8 B = C C - ( A A * * 2 - B B * * 2 ) / F N 6 0 9 P ( 1 , 1 ) = 0 . 2 5 * A T A N ( T / B ) 6 1 0 I F ( ( A B S ( P ( 1 , I D - Z E R O ) . G T . O . ) GO TO 6 9 6 1 1 7 • N C 0 U N T = N C 0 U N T + 1 . 6 1 2 GO TO 5 0 0 6 1 3 6 9 T A N 4 P = T / 8 6 1 4 I F ( T - B ) 1 0 4 1 , 1 4 3 3 , 1 0 4 2 6 1 5 1 4 3 3 I F ( ( T + B - E P S ) . L T . O . ) GO TO 5 0 0 6 1 6 1 0 4 3 C 0 S 4 T = C 0 N S 6 1 7 S I N 4 T = C 0 N S 6 1 8 GO TO 5 0 0 0 6 1 9 1 0 4 1 T A N 4 T = A B S ( T ) / A B S ( B ) 6 2 0 I F ( ( T A N 4 T - E P S ) . L T . O . ) GO TO 8 0 0 0 6 2 1 1 1 0 0 C 0 S 4 T = 1 . 0 / S Q R T ( 1 . 0 + T A N 4 T * * 2 ) 6 2 2 S I N 4 T = T A N 4 T * C 0 S 4 T 6 2 3 C 6 2 4 C 6 2 5 GO TO 5 0 0 0 6 2 6 8 0 0 0 I F ( B . G E . O . ) GO TO 5 0 0 62 7 1 1 5 0 S I N P = C U N S 6 2 8 C O S P = C O N S 6 2 9 GO T O 1 0 0 0 6 3 0 1 0 4 2 C T N 4 T = A B S ( T / B ) 6 3 1 I F ( ( C T N 4 T - E P S ) . L T . O . ) GO TO 9 0 0 0 6 3 2 1 2 0 0 S I N 4 T = 1 . 0 / S Q R T ( 1 . 0 + C T N 4 T * * 2 ) 6 3 3 C 0 S 4 T = C T N 4 T * S I N 4 T 6 3 4 GO TO 5 0 0 0 6 3 5 9 0 0 0 C 0 S 4 T = 0 . 0 6 3 6 S I N 4 T = 1 . 0 6 3 7 5 0 0 0 C 0 S 2 T = S Q R T ( ( 1 . 0 + C 0 S 4 T ) / 2 . 0 ) 6 3 8 • S I N 2 T = S I N 4 T / { 2 . 0 * C 0 S 2 T ) 6 3 9 C O S T = S Q R T ( ( 1 . 0 + C 0 S 2 T ) / 2 . 0 ) 6 4 0 S I N T = S I N 2 T / ( 2 . O N C O S T ) 6 4 1 I F I B . L E . O . ) GO TO 1 2 5 0 6 4 2 1 3 0 0 C O S P = C O S T 6 4 3 S I N P = S I N T 6 4 4 GO TO 7 0 0 0 6 4 5 1 2 5 0 C O S P = C O N S * C O S T + C O N S * S I N T 6 4 6 S I N P = A B S ( C O N S * C O S T - C O N S * S I N T ) 6 4 7 7 0 0 0 I F ( T . G T . O . ) GO TO 1 0 0 0 6 4 8 1 4 0 0 S I N P = - S I N P 6 4 9 1 0 0 0 DO 100 1 = 1 , N 6 5 0 AA = A ( I , J ) * C O S P + A ( . I , K ) * S I N P 6 5 1 B B = - A ( I , J ) * S I N P + A ( I , K ) * C O S P 6 5 2 A ( I , J ) = A A 6 5 3 1 0 0 A ( I , K ) = B B 6 5 4 5 0 0 C O N T I N U E 6 5 5 GO TO 2 2 2 212 6 5 6 9 9 9 DO 6 1 = 1 , N 65 7 DO 6 J = 1 , L 6 5 8 6 A ( I , J ) = A ( I , J ) * H ( I ) 6 5 9 N C = N V - 2 6 6 0 2 0 0 4 DO 2 0 1 5 J = 1 , L 6 6 1 A A = 0 . 0 6 6 2 DO 2 0 0 9 1 = 1 , N 6 6 3 I F < ( A B S ( A ( I , J ) ) - . 5 0 ) . L E . O . ) GO TO 2 0 0 9 6 6 4 2 0 0 5 AA=AA+ A ( I , J ) 6 6 5 2 0 0 9 C O N T I N U E 6 6 6 I F I A A . G E . O . ) GO TO 2 0 1 5 6 6 7 2 0 1 0 DO 2 0 1 4 1 = 1 ,N 6 6 8 2 0 1 4 A ( I f J ) = - 1 . 0 * A ( I , J ) 6 6 9 2 0 1 5 C O N T I N U E 6 7 0 W R I T E ( 6 , 9 0 3 ) 6 7 1 9 0 3 F O R M A T ( 1 H 0 , ' M A T R I X R O T A T E D TO V A R I M A X C R I T E R I O N ' ) 6 7 2 I F ( K E N T . G T . O . ) GO TO 6 0 0 8 6 7 3 6 0 0 7 C A L L M T T O U T ( A , N , L ) 6 7 4 N6=L 6 7 5 GO TO 6 0 0 9 6 7 6 6 0 0 8 C A L L O U T F L ( A , N , L , K L S T R S , J V ) 6 7 7 6 0 0 9 N 0 C = L 6 7 8 B B C T = 0 . 0 6 7 9 DO 6 1 0 1 = 1 , L 6 8 0 B B C ( I ) = 0 . 0 6 8 1 DO 611 J = 1 , N 6 8 2 6 1 1 B B C ( I ) = B B C ( I ) + A ( J , I ) * A ( J » I ) 6 8 3 6 1 0 B B C T = B B C T + B B C ( I ) 6 8 4 WR ITE ( 6 , 6 2 0 ) 6 8 5 6 2 0 F O R M A T ( I H , ' S U M A( I , J ) S Q . FOR E A C H R O T A T E D F A C T O R ' ) 6 8 6 W R I T E ( 6 , 9 4 2 ) ( B B C ( I ) , 1 = 1 , L ) 6 8 7 WR ITE ( 6 , 9 0 0 ) 6 8 8 W R I T E ( 6 , 9 0 7 ) 6 8 9 9 0 7 F O R M A T ( I H , ' S U M A ( I , J ) S Q . FOR V A R I A B L E S A F T E R R O T A T I O N ' ) 6 9 0 DO 322 1 = 1 , N 6 9 1 B B C ( I ) = 0 . 0 6 9 2 DO 322 J = 1 , L 6 9 3 SUMXX( I, J )=A( I, J ) 6 9 4 3 2 2 B B C ( I ) = B B C ( I ) + A ( I , J ) * A { I , J ) 6 9 5 P C T = B B C T / F L 0 A T ( N ) * 1 0 0 . 0 6 9 6 I F ( K E N T . G T . O ) GO TO 4 0 8 3 6 9 7 4 0 8 2 WR ITE ( 6 , 9 0 9 ) ( I , R P » B B C ( I ) , 1 = I » N ) 6 9 8 ' W R I T E ( 6 , 9 0 0 ) 6 9 9 W R I T E ( 6 , 6 2 1 ) B B C T , P C T 7 0 0 6 2 1 OFORMAT ( ' T O T A L SUM A ( I , J ) SQ = ' , 1 F 6 . 2 / ' W H I C H I S ' , 1 F 6 . 2 , ' 7 0 1 IT OF T O T A L S C O R E V A R I A N C E . ' ) P E R C E N 7 0 2 GO TO 4 0 8 5 7 0 3 4 0 8 3 W R I T E ( 6 , 9 0 9 ) ( K L S T R S ( I , J V ) , R P , B B C { I ) , I = 1 , N ) 7 0 4 WRITE ( 6 , 9 0 0 ) 7 0 5 4 0 8 5 C O N T I N U E 7 0 6 9 4 2 FORMAT ( 9 X , 2 F 1 0 . 2 , 8 ( 1 X , I F 1 0 . 2 ) ) 7 0 7 9 0 0 F O R M A T ( 1 H 0 ) 7 0 8 9 0 9 F O R M A T ( 1 0 ( I X , 1 1 3 , 1 A 1 » 1 F 7 « 2 ) ) 7 0 9 R E T U R N 7 1 0 END 7 1 1 C 7 1 2 C 7 1 3 S U B R O U T I N E O U T F L ( R , M , K , K L S T R S , J V ) 7 1 4 I N T E G E R*2 K L S T R S 7 1 5 D I M E N S I O N R ( 2 C 0 , 2 0 0 ) , K L S T R S ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) 213 7 1 7 9 3 0 FORMAT ( 2H , I 5 , I X , F l 3 . 4 , 9 ( F 1 0 . 4 , 1 X ) ) 7 1 8 K M A N Y = ( ( ( K - l ) / 1 0 + l ) * 1 0 ) 7 1 9 DO 9 9 5 L 2 = 1 0 , K M A N Y , 1 0 7 2 0 L l = L 2 - 9 7 2 1 L = L 2 7 2 2 I F ( L 2 . E Q . K M A N Y ) L=K 7 2 3 9 9 7 W R I T E ( 6 , 9 1 0 H I , I = L 1 , L ) 7 2 4 DO 9 9 5 1 = 1 , M 7 2 5 9 9 5 W R I T E ( 6 , 9 3 0 ) K L S T R S ( I , J V ) , ( R { I , J ) , J = L 1 , L ) 7 2 6 9 9 9 R E T U R N 7 2 7 END 7 2 8 C 7 2 9 C 7 3 0 C C O N T R O L PGM 7 3 1 S U B R O U T I N E C N T R L -7 3 2 I N T E G E R * 2 K L S T R S 7 3 3 O D I M E N S I O N A ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , D U M 1 ( 2 0 0 ) , D U M 2 ( 2 C 0 ) , S C O R E S ( 2 0 0 , 5 0 ) , . 7 3 4 2 0 , 2 0 0 ) K L S T R S C 2 0 7 3 5 COMMON A , D U M 1 , D U M 2 , S C O R E S , K L S T R S , N O S , N O V , N O F , N R O , C U T , J V A L 7 3 6 N=NOS 7 3 7 L=NOF 7 3 8 I F ( ( J V A L - 1 ) . G E . O ) GO TO 18 7 3 9 1 C R 2 = . 5 0 * C U T 7 4 0 C R 3 = . 7 0 * C U T 7 4 1 C R 4 = . 6 0 * C U T 7 4 2 N X 2 = L + L 7 4 3 I F ( L . G E . 5 0 ) N X 2 = 1 0 0 7 4 4 C 7 4 5 DO 185 I T 1 = 1 ,N 7 4 6 DO 185 IT 2 = 1 , N X 2 7 4 7 1 8 5 K L S T R S ( I T i , I T 2 5 = 0 7 4 8 DO 9 J = 1 , L 7 4 9 11=0 7 5 0 DO 9 1 = 1 , N 7 5 1 C = A ( I , J ) 7 5 2 I F ( ( C - C R 2 ) . L E . 0 . ) GO TO 9 7 5 3 3 1 1 = 1 1 + 1 7 5 4 7 K L S T R S ( I I , J ) = I 7 5 5 9 C O N T I N U E 7 5 6 J P = L 7 5 7 DO 109 J = 1 , L 7 5 8 J P = J P + 1 7 5 9 11=0 7 6 0 DO 109 1 = 1 , N 7 6 1 C = - 1 . 0 * A ( I , J ) 7 6 2 I F ( ( C - C R 2 J . L E . O . ) GO TO 1 0 9 7 6 3 1 0 3 1 1 = 1 1 + 1 7 6 4 A ( I , J ) = C 7 6 5 K L S T R S ( I I , J P ) = I 7 6 6 1 0 9 C O N T I N U E 7 6 7 L = 2 * L 7 6 8 C 7 6 9 J J = 0 7 7 0 DO 15 J = 1 , L 7 7 1 I I S U M = 0 7 7 2 ' DO 10 1 = 1 , N 7 7 3 I F ( K L S T R S ( I , J J . L E . O ) GO TO 1 0 7 7 4 8 I I S U M = I I S U M + 1 7 7 5 10 C O N T I N U E 214 776 C 777 778 50 779 780 51 781 782 61 783 784 785 C 786 52 787 788 70 789 790 791 792 793 794 71 795 62 796 797 63 798 799 800 801 C 802 53 803 804 80 805 806 807 808 809 810 81 811 91 812 813 90 814 815 816 817 818 819 82 820 92 821 822 93 823 824 825 826 827 C 828 11 829 830 12 831 15 832 833 C 834 18 835 I F ( ( I I S U M - 4 J . G E . 0 ) GO TO 11 I I SM= I ISUM+1 GO TO t 5 1 , 5 1 , 5 2 , 5 3 ) , I ISM I F ( L . G T . N O F ) GO TO 1 5 W R I T E t 6 , 6 1 ) J , C R 2 O F O R M A T { 1 H 0 1 3 H F A C T 0 R C O L U M N , I 3 / 1 H , 7 1 H B E I N G C R O P P E D B E C A U S E 1EWER THAN TWO I N D I V I D U A L S G R E A T E R T H A N , F 5 . 2 ) IT HAS F GO TO 15 111 = 0 1 = 0 1=1 + 1 I T = K L S T R S ( I , J ) I F ( I T . E Q . O ) GO T O 71 C = A ( I T , J ) I F t C . G T . C R 3 ) 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 + 1 GO TO 7 0 I F ( 1 1 1 - 2 ) 6 2 , 1 1 , 1 0 0 IF t L . G T . N O F ) GO TO 15 W R I T E ( 6 , 6 3 ) J , C R 2 , C R 3 OFORMAT ( 1 H 0 , 1 3 H F A C T 0 R C O L U M N , 13 / IH , * BE I NG DROPPED B E C A U S E ; IS ONLY TWO I N D I V I D U A L S L O A D E D G R E A T E R T H A N ' , F 5 . 2 , • 3 U T 2 MORE THAN * , F 5 . 2 ) NOT GO TO 15 1 1 1 = 0 1 = 0 1=1 + 1 IT = K L S T R S t l . J ) I F t I T . E Q . O ) GO TO 81 C = At I T , J ) I F ( C . G T . C R 3 ) I I I = 1 1 1 + 1 GO TO 8 0 I F t ( I I 1 - 2 ) . G E . O ) GO TO 11 1 1 1 = 0 1=0 1=1+1 I T = K L S T R S ( I , J ) I F ( I T . E Q . O ) GO T O 82 C = A t I T , J ) I F ( C . G T . C R 4 ) 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 + 1 GO TO 9 0 I F ( I I I - 3 ) 9 2 , 1 1 , 1 0 0 IF ( L . G T . N O F ) GO TO 15 W R I T E t 6 , 9 3 ) J , C R 2 , C R 4 , C R 3 OFORMAT ( 1 H 0 , 1 3 H F A C T 0 R C O L U M N , 13 / IH , ' B E I N G D R O P P E D : ; " 1 H A S O N L Y T H R E E S U B J E C T S WITH L O A D I N G S G R E A T E R T H A N « , F 5 . 2 / ; : 5 r 2 ' B U T T H E Y ARE N E I T H E R A L L 0 V E R ' , F 5 . 2 , •NOR A R E 2 OF THEM 2R T H A N ' , F 5 . 2 ) G R E A T E GO TO 15 J J = J J + 1 DO 12 1 = 1 , N K L S T R S U , J J ) = K L S T R S ( I , J ) C O N T I N U E N O F = J J J V A L = J V A L + 1 I F ( J V A L . G T . N O F ) GO TO 21 215 I T HA B E C A U S E I T 836 20 CALL U5Q 837 21 END FILE 3 838 CALL WPOUT 839 RETURN 840 C 841 100 WRITE (6,101) 842 101 FORMAT(1H0, 23HERR0R EXIT FROM CONTROL) 843 STOP 844 END 845 c 846 c 847 C THERE IS NO SUBROUTINE NUMBER N 848 C 849 c 85 0 SUBROUTINE DSQ 851 INTEGER*2 KLSTRS 852 • ODIMENSION DSR(200,200), DUM1(200), DUM2(200), SCORES(200,50) 853 1KLSTRS(200,200) 854 c 855 OCOMMON DSR,DUM1,DUM2,SCORES,KLSTRS,NOS,NOV,NOF,NOR,CUT,JVAL, 856 1KLI,AVDSQ,N0C,MVAL,II 857 c 858 N=NOS 859 L=NOV 860 JV=JVAL 861 TR=1000 862 IF(N.EQ.O) GO TO 40 863 c 864 101 WRITE(6,1) JVAL 865 1 FORMAT (1H1, 28HSHAPE FAMILY FACTOR NUMBER—,13) 866 c 867 DO 5 1=1,N 868 IDI=KLSTRS(I,JV) 869 IF(IDI.LE.O) GO TO 4 870 5 CONTINUE 871 4 KLI=I-1 872 I = N 873 N=KL I 874 AN=N 875 WRITE(6,31) 876 31 FORMAT(1H0,21HPR0FILE MEMBERS ARE—) 877 WRITEt6,32)(KLSTRS(I,JV),1=1,N ) 878 32 FORMAT(I3,29( 1H,,I3) ) 879 GO TO 41 880 40 N=KL I 881 AN=N 882 JV = 1 883 NOF = i 884 DO 45 1=1,N 885 45 KLSTRS(I,1)=I 886 NOS=KLI 887 READ(3)((SCORES(M,J),J=l,L),M=1,KLI) 888 C 889 41 AL = L 890 DO 51 1=1,N 891 IDI=KLSTRS(I,JV) 892 DO 51 K=1,N 893 IDK=KLSTRS(K,JV) 894 SS=0.0 895 DO 50 J=1,L 216 896 SSS=SCORES( ID I,J)-SCORESUDK,J) 897 50 SS=SS+SSS*SSS 898 51 DSR(I,K)=SQRT(SS)/AL 899 C 900 AVDSQ=0.0 901 DO 74 1=1, N 902 DO 74 K=1,N 903 DSRIK,I)=DSR(I,K) 904 74 AVDSQ=AVDSQ+DSR(I,K) 905 ANN=AN*(AN-1.0) 906 AVDSQ=AVDSQ/ANN 907 70 WRITE(6,80) 908 80 F0RMAT(1H0,25X,'D-ANALYSIS OF SHAPE FAMILY') . 909 C 910 71 CALL TRDSQ 911 C 912 72 CALL F A R F ( l ) 913 RETURN 914 END 915 C 916 C 917 SUBROUTINE TRDSQ 918 INTEGER*2 KLSTRS 919 C 920 ODIMENSICN DSQ(200,200),DUM1(200), DUM21200), SCORES(200,50) , 921 2KLSTRS1200,200) 92 2 OCOMMON DSQ,DUM1,DUM2,SCORES,KLSTRS,NOS,NOV,NOF,NOR,CUT,JVAL, 923 1KLI,AVDSQ,N0C,MVAL,II 924 C 925 WRITE (6,6) AVDSQ 926 6 FORMAT(1H0.30X,'MEAN D FOR THIS FACTOR IS',F7e2) 927 C SUBTRACTS ALL D'S FROM LARGEST VALUE PRESENT. 928 N=KLI 929 1 BIG=DSQ(1,1) 930 DO 10 1=1,N 931 DO 10 K=1,N 932 IF((BI6-DSQ(I,K) J.GE.O.) GO TO 10 933 5 BIG=DSQ(I,K) 934 10 CONTINUE 935 C 936 DO 20 1=1,N 937 DO 20 K=1,N 938 20 DSQ(I,K)=BIG-DSQ(I,K) 939 WRITE(6,11)BIG 940 11 FORMAT('OD''S TRANSFORMED BY SUBTRACTING EACH FR0M'F7.2,'" 941 1DING BY THE LARGEST ELEMENT TO GIVE SIMILARITY INDICES' ) 942 BIG=0.0 94 3 DO 2 5 1=1,N 944 DSQI I, I) = 0.0 945 DO 25 J=1,N 946 IF(DSQ{I,J).GT.BIG) 8IG=DSQ(I,J) . 947 25 CONTINUE 948 IF(BIG.EQ.O.) GO TO 1000 949 DO 30 1=1,N 950 DO 30 J=1,N 951 30 DSQ(I,J)=DSQ(I,J)/BIG 952 1000 RETURN 953 END 954 C " AND DIVI 95 5 C 217 956 957 958 959 960 961 96 2 C 963 964 965 966 C 967 968 969 970 971 972 501 973 C 974 975 976 977 978 6 979 980 57 981 10 982 c 983 984 11 98 5 986 987 988 989 49 990 50 991 C 992 993 51 994 52 995 996 17 997 998 999 66 1000 1001 1002 C 1003 13 1004 C 1005 12 1006 1007 20 1008 1009 65 1010 1011 100 1012 1013 1014 1015 bUBKUUl INfc MUUhi. INTEGE R*2 KLSTRS 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 K L S T R S ( 2 0 0 , 2 C 0 ) OCOMMON A, DUM,KFAM, SCORES, KLSTRS, NOS, NOV, NOF, NRO, CUT, J V A L , KLI, 1AVDSQ, NOC, MVAL, I I , MM N=KL I L = NOC JV=JVAL MM = 0 DO 100 M=1,L MVAL=M PIVCR=CUT*0.5 DO 501 IT1=1,N0S K F A M ( I T 1 ) = 0 11=0 DO 10 1=1,N C=A(I,M) I F ( ( C - P I V C R ) . L T . O . ) GO TO 10 11=11+1 I L K = K L S T R S ( I , J V ) K F A M ( I I ) = I L K CONTINUE. I F ( ( I I - 2 ) . G T . O ) GO TO 12 PIV=1.25*PIVCR 11=0 DO 50 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 W R I T E ( 6 , 5 2 ) J V , M OFORMAT(IH1, 21H THIS IS SHAPE FAMILY, 13 / 1H0,•D-FACTOR NO. WRITE(6,17) ,13? OFORMAT (1H0,52H I N S U F F I C I E N T SUBJECTS TO ESTABLISH A STABLE IN) PATTEf ' WRITE(6,66) P I V C R . P I V OFORMAT (1H0, 35H PIVOT CRITERION FIRST EMPLOYED WAS, F 6 . 2 . U 113H LATER IT WAS, F7.2) • GO TO 100 PIVCR=PIV MM = MM+ I WRITE(6,20) JV,MM FORMAT{13H1SHAPE FAMILY, 13 / BM PATTERN, 13) WRITE!6,65)PIVCR FORMAT{ 1H0, 27HPIV0T CRITERION EMPLOYED I S , F6.2) CALL MATCH CONTINUE CALL CNTRL RETURN END SUBROUTINE MATCH /1H, 218 1U16 U 1 0 1 7 I N T E G E R * 2 K L S T R S 1 0 1 8 0COMMON A t DUM 1 , KFAM , SCORE S , K L S T R S , N O S , NOV , NOF , NRO , C U T , J V A L ,,• 1 0 1 9 1 A V D S Q , N O C , M V A L , I I , M M , M T O T , N P C H , T S D K L I , 1 0 2 0 O D I M E N S I O N A ( 2 00 , 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 0 2 1 1 ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , P M E A N C 5 0 ) , V A R W T ( 5 0 ) , P D S Q 1 2 0 0 ) , C D S Q ( i 0 0 , 1 0 0 ) , 1 0 2 2 2 , T M N ( 5 0 ) , T S D ( 5 0 ) K T E M P ( I O O ) 1 0 2 3 D A T A RP / • ) • / 1 0 2 4 C 1 0 2 5 I F ( ( 1 1 - 1 0 0 ) . L E . O ) GO TO 3 1 0 2 6 4 W R I T E ( 6 , 7 ) 1 0 2 7 7 FORMAT ( l H O , / « L O A D E D S U B J E C T S IN DSQ F A C T O R E X C E E D S T O R A G E 1 0 2 8 GO TO 1 0 0 0 R O O M 1 ) 1 0 2 9 3 MV=MVAL 1 0 3 0 K L I T = K L I 1 0 3 1 N=NOS 1 0 3 2 . L=NOV 1 0 3 3 J V = J V A L 1 0 3 4 AN=N 1 0 3 5 A L = L 1 0 3 6 A l 1 = 1 I 1 0 3 7 I F ( N P C H . E Q . 1 0 0 ) GO TO 5 4 1 0 3 8 W R I T E ( 3 ) J V , M M 1 0 3 9 54 M T 0 T = M T 0 T + 1 1 0 4 0 DO 4 1 0 I T 1 = 1 , N 0 V 1041 P M E A N ( I T 1 ) = 0 . 0 1 0 4 2 V A R W T ( I T 1 ) = 0 . 0 1 0 4 3 4 1 0 T M N ( I T 1 ) = 0 . 0 1 0 4 4 W R I T E ( 6 , 5 1 ) 1 0 4 5 51 FORMAT ( 1 H 0 , 2 0 H P I V O T P R O F I L E S A R E — ) 1 0 4 6 C 1 0 4 7 DD 55 1 = 1 , 1 1 1 0 4 8 K F I D = K F A M ( I ) 1 0 4 9 DO 55 J = 1 , K L I T 1 0 5 0 I F ( ( K F I D - K L S T R S t J , J V ) ) . N E . O ) GO TO 55 1 0 5 1 52 K T E M P ( I ) = J 1 0 5 2 55 C O N T I N U E 1 0 5 3 W R I T E ( 6 , 5 8 ) ( K F A M ( I ) , 1 = 1 , 1 1 ) 1 0 5 4 5 8 FORMAT (I 3 , 2 9 ( I H , , I 3 ) ) 1 0 5 5 C 1 0 5 6 C 1 0 5 7 DO 10 J = 1 , L 1 0 5 8 T P 7 = 0 . 0 1 0 5 9 DO 10 1 = 1 , 1 1 1 0 6 0 I T = K F A M ( I ) 1 0 6 1 P M E A N l J ) = P M E A N ( J ) + S C O R E S ( I T , J ) * A ( I T , M V ) * A ( I T , M V ) 1 0 6 2 T M N ( J ) = T M N ( J ) + S C O R E S ( I T , J ) 1 0 6 3 T P 7 = T P 7 + T S D ( J ) 1 0 6 4 1 0 V A R W T ( J ) = V A R W T ( J ) + S C O R E S ( I T , J ) * S C O R E S ( I T , J ) 1 0 6 5 C 1 0 6 6 T P 7 = T P 7 * . 0 1 / A L 1 0 6 7 S U M W T = 0 . 0 1 0 6 8 DO 5 1 = 1 , 1 1 1 0 6 9 IT = KFAM( I ) 1 0 7 0 5 S U M W T = S U M W T + A ( I T , M V ) * A ( I T , M V ) " K L S T R S 1 0 7 1 C 1 0 7 2 DO 41 J = 1 , L 1 0 7 3 P M E A N ( J ) = P M E A N ( J ) / S U M W T 1 0 7 4 T M N ( J ) = T M N ( J ) / A I I 1 0 7 5 T P 5 = V A R W T ( J ) / A I I - T M N ( J ) * T M N ( J ) 219 1 0 7 6 I F ( T P 5 . L T . T P 7 ) T P 5 = T P 7 1 0 7 7 43 V A R W T ( J ) = T S D ( J ) / S Q R T ( T P 5 ) 1 0 7 8 41 C O N T I N U E 1 0 7 9 C 1 0 8 0 S U M J = 0 . 0 1 0 8 1 DO 6 J = 1 , L 1 0 8 2 6 S U M J = S U M J + V A R W T ( J ) 1 0 8 3 C 1 0 8 4 W R I T E ( 6 , 2 3 ) 1 0 8 5 2 3 O F O R M A T ( 1 H 0 , « I N T E R P R O F I L E D « « S FOR P A T T E R N MEMBERS ( B A S E D 1 0 8 6 1 A B L E W E I G H T I N G ) * ) UPON VARI 1 0 8 7 C 1 0 8 8 S U M = 0 . 0 1 0 8 9 DO 510 1 = 1 , I I 1 0 9 0 IK = K F A M ( I ) 1 0 9 1 DO 5 1 0 K = l , I I 1 0 9 2 K I = K F A M ( K ) 1 0 9 3 S S = 0 . 0 1 0 9 4 DO 509 J = 1 , L 1 0 9 5 S S S = S C O R E S ( I K , J ) - S C O B E S ( K I , J ) 1 0 9 6 5 0 9 S S = S S + S S S * S S S * V A R W T ( J ) 1 0 9 7 C D S Q ( I , K ) = S Q R T ( S S ) / S U M J 1 0 9 8 5 1 0 S U M = S U M + C D S Q ( I , K ) 1 0 9 9 C 1 1 0 0 S U M = S U M / ( ( A I I - l o ) * A I I ) 1 1 0 1 W R I T E ( 6 , 8 6 1 ) SUM 1 1 0 2 8 6 1 FORMAT (• MEAN D = » , F 5 . 2 ) 1 1 0 3 C A L L OUTMCH ( C D S Q » 1 1 , 1 1 » KFAM) 1 1 0 4 C 1 1 0 5 DO 4 6 9 I T 1 = 1 , N 0 S 1 1 0 6 4 6 9 PDSQ U T i ) = 0 „ 0 1 1 0 7 ' DO 7 1 1 1 = 1 , U 1 1 0 8 DO 7 1 0 J = 1 , L 1 1 0 9 S S T = S C O R E S ( I , J ) - P M E A N ( J ) 1 1 1 0 7 1 0 P D S Q C I ) = P D S Q ( I ) + S S T * S S T * V A R W T ( J ) 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 P D S Q d ) = PDSQ ( I J / S U M J 1 1 1 2 C 1 1 1 3 I F ( N P C H . E Q . I O O ) GO TO 5 6 1 1 1 4 W R I T E O ) I P D S Q C I ) t 1 = 1 , N ) 1 1 1 5 WR ITE ( 3 ) ( V A R W T ( J ) , J = 1 , L ) 1 1 1 6 WR ITE ( 3 ) ( P M E A N ( J ) , J = 1 , L ) 1 1 1 7 5 6 WR ITE ( 6 , 8 2 1 ) 1 1 1 8 8 2 1 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 C O M P A R E D WITH T H I S 1 1 1 9 1G W E I G H T I N G S FOR V A R I A B L E S — 8 ) P A T T E R N USIN 1 1 2 0 W R I T E ( 6 , 1 2 ) ( I , R P , P D S Q ( I ) , 1 = 1 , N ) 1 1 2 1 12 FORMAT ( 1 0 ( 3 X , I 2 , 1 A 1 , F 7 . 2 ) ) 1 1 2 2 W R I T E ( 6 , 2 1 ) 1 1 2 3 21 FORMAT ( 1 H 0 / 4 0 H 0 V A R I A B L E WE IGHTS FOR T H I S P A T T E R N A R E - - ) 1 1 2 4 WR ITE ( 6 , 1 2 ) ( J , R P , V A R W T ( J ) , J = 1 , L ) 1 1 2 5 W R I T E ( 6 , 1 1 ) 1 1 2 6 11 FORMAT ( 1 H 0 / 1 H 0 , 4 1 H W E I G H T E D MEANS ON V A R I A B L E S FOR PATTER? 1 1 2 7 W R . I T E ( 6 , 1 2 M J , R P , P M £ A N ( J ) , J = 1 , L ) --) 1 1 2 8 R E T U R N 1 1 2 9 C 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 W R I T E ( 6 , 8 2 2 ) 1131 . 8 2 2 F O R M A T ( 2 2 H 2 E R R O R E X I T FROM M A T C H ) 1 1 3 2 S T O P 1 1 3 3 END 1 1 3 4 C 1 1 3 5 C 220 1 1 3 7 1 1 3 8 C 1 1 3 9 C 1 1 4 0 9 1 0 1 1 4 1 9 3 0 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 3 1 1 4 4 1 1 4 5 1 1 4 6 1 1 4 7 9 9 7 1 1 4 8 1 1 4 9 9 9 5 1 1 5 0 9 9 9 1151 1 1 5 2 . c 1 1 5 3 C 1 1 5 4 1 1 5 5 C 1 1 5 6 1 1 5 7 1 1 5 8 1 1 5 9 1 1 6 0 1 1 6 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 6 3 1 1 6 4 1 1 6 5 1 1 6 6 1 1 6 7 1 1 6 8 1 1 6 9 9 9 8 1 1 7 0 11 1 1 7 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 7 3 9 9 9 1 1 7 4 9 9 2 1 1 7 5 1 1 7 6 9 9 7 1 1 7 7 1 1 7 8 1 1 7 9 1 1 8 0 1 0 1 1 8 1 1 1 8 2 1 1 8 3 8 0 2 1 1 8 4 8 0 1 1 1 8 5 1 1 8 6 51 1 1 8 7 1 1 8 8 1 1 8 9 7 0 2 1 1 9 0 7 0 1 1 1 9 1 119 2 7 0 4 1 1 9 3 7 0 3 1 1 9 4 1 1 9 5 5 0 oi/ci\uo^ t ivx: i riv^ n \ i\fn|r>) TWIT H n / D I M E N S I O N R ( 10 0 , 10 0 ) » K F A M ( 2 0 0 ) F O R M A T ( 1 H 0 , 9 X , 1 0 ( I 1 0 , I X ) ) F O R M A T ( 2 H , I 5 , 1 X , F 1 3 . 2 , 9 ( F 1 0 . 2 , 1 X ) ) K M A N Y = ( ( ( K - l ) / 1 0 + l ) * 1 0 ) DO 9 9 5 L 2 = 1 0 , K M A N Y , 1 0 L l = L 2 - 9 L = L 2 I F ( L 2 . E Q . K M A N Y ) L=K WR ITE t 6 , 9 1 0 ) ( K F A M ( I ) , I = L 1, L ) DO 9 9 5 I = 1 , M W R I T E ( 6 , 9 3 0 ) K F A M ( I ) , ( R ( I , J ) , J = L 1 , L ) R E T U R N END S U B R O U T I N E WPOUT W R I T E S OUT S T O R A G E O D I M E N S I O N T S D ( 5 0 ) , T M N { 5 0 ) , D S ( 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , V A R W T ( 2 0 0 , 5 0 ) , P T R N .. 1 J V ( 2 0 0 ) , M V ( 2 0 0 ) , D U M K 1 0 0 0 0 ) ( 2 0 0 , 5 0 ) , 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 , N 0 C , M V A L , I I , M M , M T O T , N P C H , T S D , T M N A V D S Q I F I M T O T . G T . 1 0 0 ) GO TO 6 0 9 I F ( M T O T . E Q . O ) GO TO 6 0 I F ( N P C H . E Q . I O O ) GO TO 60 REWIND 3 L=NOV N=NOS R E A D ( 3 ) KEY I F ( K E Y . EQ . 1 0 0 ) GO TO 6 0 I F ( K E Y . G T . O ) GO T O 9 9 9 W R I T E ( 6 , 1 1 ) O F O R M A T ( I H 1 , ' 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 I L E W E I G H T I N G S • / • O S H A P E / N O . » ) V A R I A B GO TO 9 9 7 W R I T E ( 6 , 9 9 2 ) OFORMAT ( l H l . ' 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 I L E 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 . • ) V A R I A B DO 10 M = 1 , M T 0 T R E A D ( 3 ) J V ( M ) , MV(M) READ ( 3 ) ( D S ( M , I ) , 1 = 1 , N ) READ ( 3 ) ( V A R W T ( M , J ) , J = 1 , L ) READ ( 3 ) ( P T R N ( M , J ) , J = 1 , L ) REWIND 3 I F ( N P C H . L E . O ) GOTO 8 0 1 C A L L O U T P C H ( D S , M T O T , N , J V , M V ) C A L L O U T W P I D S , M T O T , N , J V , M V ) I F ( K E Y . G T . O ) GO TO 50 W R I T E ( 6 , 2 1 ) C A L L O U T W P ( P T R N , M T O T , L , J V , M V ) I F ( N P C H . L E . O ) GO TO 701 C A L L O U T P C H ( P T R N , M T O T , L , J V , M V ) W R I T E ( 6 , 3 1 ) I F ( N P C H . L E . O ) GO TO 7 0 3 C A L L O U T P C H l V A R W T , M T O T , L , J V , M V ) C A L L O U T W P ( V A R W T , M T O T , L , J V , M V ) GO TO 62 W R I T E ( 6 , 1 5 ) 221 u r u i M T M i u n i f j o r i K c i u n i L U PILHIN J I H U U H K U OV,UISL:O t j i ^ V H M H U L C O 1197 1PATTERN / 1H0, 9HSHAPE/NC.) FOR THE 1198 CALL OUTWP(PTRN,MTOT,L,JV,MV) 1199 DO 20 J=1,L 1200 DO 20 M=1,MT0T 1201 20 PTRN(M,J)=PTRN(M,J)*TSD(J)+TMN(J) 1202 WRITE(6,21) 1203 21 OFORMAT (1H1,49HWEIGHTED MEAN RAW SCORES ON VARIABLES FOR 1204 11H0, 9HSHAPE/N0.) PATTERN/ 1205 IF(NPCH) 705,705,706 1206 706 CALL OUTPCHIPTRN,MT0T,L,JV,MV) 1207 705 CALL 0UTWP(PTRN,MTOT,L,JV,MV) 1208 WRITEl6,25) 1209 25 OFORMAT(1H1,45HSTANDARD SCORE VARIABLES WEIGHTS FOR PATTERN / 1210 19HSHAP E/NOo ) 1H0. 1211 CALL OUTWPtVARWT,MTOT,L,JV,MV> 1212 DO 30 J=1,L 1213 DO 30 M=l,MTOT 1214 30 VARWT{M,J) = VARWT(M,J)/TSD( J) 1215 WRITE(6,31) 1216 31 OFORMAT{IH1, 'RAW SCORE VARIABLE WEIGHTS FCR PATTERN* / 1217 1 1H0, 9HSHAPE/N0.) 1218 IF (NPCH.LE.O) GO TO 707 1219 708 CALL OUTPCH (VARWT,MTOT,L,JV,MV) 1220 707 CALL OUTWP(VARWT,MTOT,L,JV,MV) 1221 62 IF (NOF.EQ. l ) GO TO 60 1222 IF (MTOT.LT.2) GO TO 60 1223 NOS=0 1224 KL I = MTOT 1225 JVAL=1 1226 NPCH=100 1227 WRITE(6,401) 1228 401 FORMAT(1H1, 'SECOND-ORDER D FACTOR ANALYSIS OF OBTAINED MCDAL 1229 IRNSM PATTE 1230 REWIND 3 1231 WRITE (3) ( (PTRN(M,J ) , J=1,L) ,M=1,MT0T) 1232 WRITE(3) KEY 1233 END FILE 3 1234 REWIND 3 1235 CALL DSQ 1236 60 CALL TRR 1237 C BACK TO MAIN PGM FOR NEXT DATA SET 1238 609 WRITE (6,611) 1239 611 OFORMAT (« ERROR EXIT FROM WPOUT.—MORE THAN 50 PATTERNS— 1240 1T0RAGE. ' ) EXCEEDS S 1241 STOP 1242 END 1243 C 1244 C 1245 SUBROUTINE OUTWP(R,M,K,JV,MV) 1246 C 1247 DIMENSION R (200,200) , JV (200) ,MV(200) 1248 910 FORMAT(1H0, 9X, 10111) 1249 930 FORMAT (IH ,12 , I 5 , F 1 3 . 2 , 9 ( F 1 0 . 2 , I X ) ) 1250 KMANY=(((K-l)/10+l>*10) 1251 DO 995 L2=10,KMANY,10 1252 Ll=L2-9 1253 L = L2 1254 IF(L2.EQ.KMANY)L=K 1255 997 WRITE(6 ,910) ( I , I=L1,L ) 222 1256 DU 995 1=1, M 1 2 5 7 9 9 5 W R I T E ( 6 , 9 3 0 ) JV ( I ) , MV ( I ) , ( R ( I , J ) , J= L1 , L ) 1 2 5 8 9 9 9 R E T U R N 1 2 5 9 END 1 2 6 0 C 1261 C 1 2 6 2 S U B R O U T I N E O U T P C H ( R , M , K , J V , M V ) 1 2 6 3 C 1 2 6 4 D I M E N S I O N R I 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 ) , J V ( 2 0 0 ) , M V ( 2 0 0 ) 1 2 6 5 D A T A RP / ' ) •/ 1 2 6 6 9 3 0 FORMAT ( I X , I 3 , I H / , I 3 , 2 X , 5 ( 1 X , I 3 , A 1 , F 7 . 2 ) , 5X , I 2 ) 1 2 6 7 K M A N Y = ( ( ( K - l ) / 5 + l ) * 5 ) 1 2 6 8 DO 9 9 5 L 2 = 5 , K M A N Y , 5 1 2 6 9 L l = L 2 - 4 1 2 7 0 L = L 2 1 2 7 1 I F ( L 2 . E Q . K M A N Y ) L=K 1 2 7 2 9 9 7 DO 9 9 5 1 = 1 , M 1 2 7 3 9 9 5 W R I T E ( 7 , 9 3 0 ) J V ( I ) , M V ( I ) , ( J , R P , R ( I , J ) , J = L 1 , L ) , I 1 2 7 4 9 9 9 R E T U R N 1 2 7 5 END END OF F I L E $ S I G 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 in a Q analysis of profiles is 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 ^ •• • • x2j*j x n l *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 is equal to the smaller of its two dimensions. If n is less than N, the rank of X is therefore n. Z is the standardized version of X, where Z = z l l z12 "' Z1N z n l *•• ZnN SD. is the standard deviation of scores on profile j . J The rank of Z is n-1, since the n score on a profile in 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 its transpose is equal to the rank of the matrix, then the rank of R is n-1. Therefore when R is factor analyzed, the maximum number of principal axes cannot exceed n-1. 225 APPENDIX G AN OUTLINE OP THE PROCEDURE 226 1. Identify Antecedent Affective Responses of Concern (a) Identify the course rationale ( i ) obtain s o l i c i t e d statement of the general purposes of the course ( i i ) r e f i n e the statement through discussions of interpretations of the general purposes i n the form of behavior delineations (b) Identify a f f e c t i v e goals w i t h i n the course rationale (c) Identify the objects of 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) Identify objects to which a f f e c t i v e responses acquired i n the past may influence the attainment of the a f f e c t i v e goals 2. Measure the Antecedent Af f e c t i v e Responses of Concern (a) Construct the SD instrument ( i ) the SD objects are to be defined from 1 (c) and 1 (d) above ( i i ) the SD scales are selected to be representative of and relevant to the a f f e c t i v e ratings from 1 (c) above (b) AdiTiinister the SD under controlled conditions (c) Factor analyze responses to SD scales ( i ) analyze the responses to each object separately ( i i ) i d e n t i f y that number of factors f o r each object which provides the most meaningful c l u s t e r of scales ( i i i ) the scores on the clusters of scales 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 of the antecedent a f f e c t i v e responses of concern 3. C l a s s i f y Students on the Basis of Similar Sets of Antecedent  Af f e c t i v e Responses (a) Perform a Q-analysis of the p r o f i l e s of a f f e c t i v e scores 227 ( i ) i d e n t i f y the number of d i f f e r e n t families of p r o f i l e s s i m i l a r on the basis of 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 of d i f f e r e n t patterns wi t h i n each shape family distinguished on the basis of l e v e l and dispersion (by studying the eigenvalues of the s i m i l a r i t y matrix f o r each shape family) (b) Describe the groups of students i d e n t i f i e d i n terms of t h e i r a f f e c t i v e responses on t h e i r respective modal pattern Identify Teaching Strategies f o r Each Group of Students (a) Identify those a f f e c t i v e responses toward objects on the modal patterns of each group which display greatest incon-gruity with the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course (b) Select teaching strategies whose function i s to change these a f f e c t i v e responses ( i ) include strategies which i d e n t i f y the object, 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 provision of facts which are relevant to 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 of 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 direct form refers to the r e -p r o d u c i b i l i t y or s t a b i l i t y of a set of r e s u l t s derived from two or more random samples selected from the same population. This type of study i s important i n areas where res u l t s derived from a random sample of a given size are to be generalized to represent the population. I f these re s u l t s are not reproducible or stable from one random sample to others then sampling error or 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 of these was a factor, the r e s u l t s would therefore not be relevant t o , or v a l i d representations of, the population. Cross v a l i d a t i o n can also r e f e r to the r e p l i c a t i o n of r e s u l t s on the same sample through the application of two d i f f e r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l tech-niques whose purposes are the same.• Approaches to cross v a l i d a t i o n under-taken i n t h i s study analyzed samples of 200 students u t i l i z i n g both types of investigations described. Implications of Cross V a l i d a t i o n There i s some uncertainty regarding the legitimacy of cross v a l i d a t i o n as an issue i n t h i s study. In f a c t , cross v a l i d a t i o n may not be an issue i f one argues that the Procedure i s not applied to samples, but rather to populations, where the population i s defined to be a class of students (e.g., the Physics 110 class was the population of i n t e r e s t ) . From another standpoint however, a p o t e n t i a l user of the Procedure might be Interested to know that the Procedure i s robust, i n the sense that i t 230 produces s i m i l a r clusters of people when applied to large random samples of students selected from the same population. -Alternately, since random samples (even large random samples) d i f f e r , and indeed may d i f f e r quite considerably when dealing with types of 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 sensitive (as opposed to robust) to be able to detect d i f f e r e n t types of people included i n dif 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 of reproducing the same set of modal patterns from two d i f f e r e n t random samples drawn from the same population was believed to 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" of ind i v i d u a l s ( i . e . , p a r t i c u l a r types of p r o f i l e s ) existed, would each be represented by several 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, or population, 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 variable p r o f i l e s by dichotomizing the p r o f i l e variable values to p o s i t i v e (+) or negative (-), q the p r o f i l e s could take on up to 2^ . or 512 di f f e r e n t shapes. Two random samples of 200 students were therefore f e l t to be f a r too small to be "representative", or to be expected to exhibit " s t a b i l i t y of types". Sample sizes f o r larger than would ever be encountered i n practice would be required to attempt representation of these types. Results of 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 studies related to the r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y of modal patterns, or "types" of students from d i f f e r e n t random samples of 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 application of the factor a n a l y t i c and 231 Q-analysis procedures described i n Chapter I I I . In the f i r s t of these studies, the responses o f a random sample of 400 students to the SD scales f o r the Objects Physics, Problem Solving and Natural Phenomena were subject to p r i n c i p a l components and varimax analysis i n the manner reported i n Chapter I I I . The SD scale factors I d e n t i f i e d f o r these three objects represented the same underlying dimensions as those i l l u s -t rated i n Appendix C. P r o f i l e s of factor scores over these dimensions were produced. At t h i s point the 400 students and t h e i r p r o f i l e s of factor scores were randomly divided i n t o two groups o f s i z e 200. These groups were each subjected to a Q-analysis using Guertin's computer prog-ram. As i n the analysis 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 at best, 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 of 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 analysis of the SD scales. The scale factors i d e n t i f i e d f o r each of these groups again represented the same underlying 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 clusterings of students i d e n t i f i e d through Q-analysis was compared t o clusterings i d e n t i f i e d by an independent form of analysis whose purpose . was the same as the purpose of Q-analysis — that i s , t o i d e n t i f y group-ings of s i m i l a r p r o f i l e s . In t h i s alternate analysis, 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 series of step decisions u n t i l a l l 200 subjects have been c l a s s i f i e d i n t o a s p e c i f i e d number of groups. That i s , i n t h i s analysis the 200 p r o f i l e s were compared over the nine variables, and progressively associated i n t o 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 step, t h i s analysis combines some p a i r of groups, thus reducing the number of groups by one. The c r i t e r i o n deter-rnining which groups were to be combined was p r o f i l e s i m i l a r i t y (as r e f -p lected i n the d index), where the t o t a l "withln-group" v a r i a t i o n was the function to be minimally increased at each step i n the process. Q-analysis, and t h i s alternate analysis d i f f e r i n many basic respects. p The alternate analysis uses a d i f f e r e n t index of s i m i l a r i t y , (d versus a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ) , and also does not consider the orthogonality or independence of the groups i d e n t i f i e d . Nor i s i t concerned with the progressive amount of v a r i a t i o n i n scores accounted for by each s u c c e s — sive group i d e n t i f i e d . A comparison of the clusters of p r o f i l e s i d e n t i f i e d through Q-analysls and t h i s alternate form of analysis revealed an overlap i n clusters 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 clusters s i m i l a r to Ik of the 16 modal patterns i d e n t i f i e d through the•Q-analysis. In view of 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 f e l t to lend some.support to the v a l i d i t y of the clusters i d e n t i f i e d . Implications of the Results The 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 clusters of people i n the two random samples would not be reassuring f o r the person 233 who wants robustness, while f o r the person who wants an instrument suf-f i c i e n t l y sensitive to detect differences 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 clusters may be reassuring. For the person who w i l l work with populations ( i . e . , e n t ire classes of students) and not random samples, t h i s r e s u l t may be of l i t t l e consequence. I t i s therefore somewhat uncertain as to how one should interpret the r e s u l t s of these cross v a l i d a t i o n studies. This uncertainty i s magnified by the apparent effects of the small sample s i z e of 200 students, and the fact that representative sample sizes would bf necessity be too large to handle i n a p r a c t i c a l manner. The r e s u l t s of the cross v a l i d a t i o n studies would therefore seem to suggest areas of further research, research which relates to the general v a l i d i t y of 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 to i d e n t i f y the modal patterns within a c l a s s , present descrip-tions of these modal patterns to the c l a s s , and ask each student w i t h i n the class to i d e n t i f y that c l u s t e r which he f e l t was most representative of himself. One could then compare the students' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s with 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 ultimate study of the v a l i d i t y and usefulness of the Procedure would be to i d e n t i f y and describe groups of s i m i l a r students, use the descriptions to i d e n t i f y the s p e c i a l teaching strategies f o r each of the groups, divide each group randomly i n t o two equivalent subgroups, provide the special i n s t r u c t i o n to only one of these subgroups, provide no s p e c i a l treatment to the other subgroup, and then analyze the effects 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 effects of no s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n i n terms of 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 to judge the relevance of a set of a f f e c t i v e responses to 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 of the af f e c t i v e goals of the course Physics 110. Study t h i s statement c a r e f u l l y . Then turn to the l a s t page which describes a set of a f f e c t i v e responses r e l a t i n g to hov; students ' f e e l ' about c e r t a i n objects. Study these a f f e c t i v e responses i n terms of the a f f e c t i v e goals, and then place 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 'feelings' referred to i n the goals. 236 PHYSICS 110 A study of the statement of the Physics 100 Course Rationale i d e n t i f i e d the a f f e c t i v e goals of the course. This statement indicated that the instructor's main motivation 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 to the students". In addition to t h i s very general goal, the Instructor wanted h i s students to be predisposed toward physics as: (1) a powerful way to understand a wide range of natural phenomena, (2) a basis f o r working i n science, technology, and to some extent i n medicine, and (3) an enterprise of society with Important implications f o r human welfare. In h i s discussion of (1), the i n s t r u c t o r indicated he would attempt to expose the structures i n and commonalities among natural phenomena by showing that a few basic laws of physics are s u f f i c i e n t to r e l a t e and thereby understand a vast amount of experiences. In t h i s respect, he hoped students would f e e l " i n t e l l e c t u a l excitement" at being able to see "the beauty of a l o g i c a l structure i n nature", and that t h i s structure would "demystify" natural phenomena, making many more phenomena understandable. In discussing (2), the in s t r u c t o r disclosed that he wished students to see that an understanding of the basic p r i n c i p l e s of physics i s needed f o r work i n a diverse variety of s c i e n t i f i c professions. In addition, he wished problem solving to be seen as a valuable and power-f u l means for obtaining an understanding of how physics works. The 237 instructor's discussions of (3) indicates that he wished students to see the relationships between science and society and t h e i r mutual r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Obj ect 1. Physics 2. Physics 3. Physics 4. Problem Solving 5. Problem Solving 6. Problem Solving 7. Problem Solving 8. Natural Phenomena 9. Natural Phenomena 10. Natural Phenomena 11. Natural Phenomena 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 15. My Previous Physics Course 16. My Previous Physics Course 17. My Previous Physics Course 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 Affective Rating Evaluation (Importance and in t e r e s t ) Potency (power) Comprehensibility (understandable) Evaluation (importance) Evaluation (interest) Potency (power) Comprehensibility (understandable) Evaluation (importance) Evaluation (interest) Potency (power) Comprehensibility (understandable) Evaluation (importance and i n t e r e s t ) Potency (power) Comprehensibility (understandable) Evaluation (importance and i n t e r e s t ) Potency (power) Comprehensibility (understandable) Evaluation (importance and in t e r e s t ) Potency (power) Comprehensibility (understandable) Evaluation (importance and Interest) Potency (power) Comprehensibility (understandable) 238 

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