Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effectiveness of logical reasoning on the solution of value problems Schactman, Chuck Seymour 1976

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 S33.pdf [ 1.85MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093797.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093797-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093797-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093797-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093797-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093797-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093797-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093797-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093797.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LOGICAL REASONING ON THE SOLUTION OF VALUE PROBLEMS by CHUCK SEYMOUR SCHACTMAN B . S c , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES i n THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the re q u i r e d standard The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia A p r i l , 1976 © Chuck Seymour Schactman, 1976 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for s cho la r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th i s thes i s fo r f i nanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permission. Department of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date A p r i l 30. 1976 A b s t r a c t C e r t a i n values education programs have been r e c e n t l y developed which emphasize teaching students to gain a b i l i t y i n c r i t i c a l , deductive reasoning. The major contention of t h i s paper was that t h i s type of reasoning i s not e n t i r e l y adequate f o r the s o l u t i o n of c e r t a i n value loaded problems. In order to e m p i r i c a l l y t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , a group of u n i v e r s i t y students t r a i n e d i n formal l o g i c was s e l e c t e d . Then three t e s t s of l o g i c were devised — one symbolic, one v e r b a l and n e u t r a l , and the t h i r d v e r b a l and value loaded. On three d i f f e r e n t sessions these t e s t s were administered so t h a t each subject attempted each t e s t . Every item across the three t e s t s was e x a c t l y the same i n terms of l o g i c a l content. The r e s u l t s were then t a b u l a t e d and the analyses performed. The r e s u l t s showed support f o r the major h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t s u b j e c t s perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on t e s t s i n c o r p o r a t i n g the same l o g i c , but whose content d i f f e r s . These r e s u l t s were then viewed i n r e l a t i o n to values education programs s t r e s s i n g deductive reasoning and t o the e d u c a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s t h a t may a r i s e . F i n a l l y i t was concluded that i f t r a n s f e r of l e a r n i n g to r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s i s a goal of education, then the programs mentioned are i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r the r e a l i z a t i o n of these g o a l s , and that the i n c l u s i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l procedures i n the a f f e c t i v e and p e r c e p t u a l , as w e l l as the c o g n i t i v e domains, i s necessary f o r the s u c c e s s f u l t r a n s f e r of learned s t r a t e g i e s to everyday l i f e s i t u a t i o n s . i i i Table of Contents Chapter Page 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n and Statement of the Problem 1 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 6 R a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s Study 7 2. Review of the L i t e r a t u r e and S p e c i f i c O b j e c t i v e s of t h i s Study 9 Moral and Values Education 9 L o g i c a l Deduction 13 Ob j e c t i v e s of t h i s Study 14 3. Method 16 Subjects 16 Test Development 17 Procedures 19 Design 20 4. R e s u l t s .21 A n a l y s i s of Variance 21 Content Area 26 Summary 29 5. D i s c u s s i o n s and Conclusions 30 E d u c a t i o n a l I m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s Study 32 Reference Notes 36 References 37 Appendix A - Test Forms 40 Appendix B - A d m i n i s t r a t i o n I n s t r u c t i o n s 53 i v L i s t of Tables Table Page 1. The Design Paradigm with C e l l and Marginal Means and C e l l Standard Deviations 22 2. Analysis of Variance Summary Table f o r a 6 By 3 F a c t o r i a l Design with Repeated Measures on the A Dimension 23 3. Tests on Contrasts Using the Scheffe Method 25 4. Analysis of Variance Summary Table f o r a 2 By 2 F a c t o r i a l Design with Repeated Measures on the A Dimension 27 5. Number of Errors Across Equivalent Items on a l l Forms and Content Area of Valued Items 28 1 CHAPTER 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n and Statement of the Problem Of major importance to the u t i l i t y of our e d u c a t i o n a l system i s the t r a n s f e r of learned a b i l i t i e s from w i t h i n the confines of our e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s to s i t u a t i o n s the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l face i n h i s everyday l i f e . H o p e f u l l y our e d u c a t i o n a l system does not operate i n a vacuum and does provide the i n d i v i d u a l w i t h some u s e f u l means f o r h a n d l i n g " r e a l l i f e " s i t u a t i o n s . Therefore, t r a n s f e r of l e a r n i n g i s one of the most important o b j e c t i v e s i n our e d u c a t i o n a l system. Methods and usage of acquired knowledge must be t r a n s f e r a b l e to other than the r e s t r i c t e d academic environment. The f a c t that most of what we l e a r n i s intended f o r a p p l i c a t i o n to problem s i t u a t i o n s i n r e a l l i f e i s i n d i c a t i v e of the importance of a p p l i c a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s i n the general c u r r i c u l u m . The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a l a r g e p a r t of the scho o l program i s t h e r e f o r e dependent upon how w e l l the students c a r r y over i n t o s i t u a t i o n s , a p p l i c a t i o n s which the student never faced i n the l e a r n i n g process. (Bloom, 1956, p. 122) P s y c h o l o g i c a l research has attempted to understand the changes that an i n d i v i d u a l goes through du r i n g , and as a r e s u l t o f , 2 a t r a i n i n g procedure. What are the e f f e c t s on the i n d i v i d u a l of a c o n s i s t e n t t r a i n i n g program i n a given area? Much of the research on the theory of " s e t " has been summarized by Young (1961). A set i s assumed to increase the p r o b a b i l i t y of occurrence of c e r t a i n responses, and to decrease the p r o b a b i l i t y of occurrence of other responses, u s u a l l y through the s e l e c t i o n , d i r e c t i o n , and r e -o r g a n i z a t i o n of some p a r t of experience. Set i n f l u e n c e s the choices made. Faced w i t h p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s and problems we are predisposed to respond i n p a r t i c u l a r ways. Therefore, s p e c i f i c e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s should b u i l d sets and predispose the student to handle s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s i n a l i k e manner, as w e l l as i n h i b i t i n g responses i n other s i t u a t i o n s . That i s , the c r e a t i o n of a set can r e s u l t i n a r e c u r r i n g response p a t t e r n s i m i l a r to the t r a i n i n g procedures, but t h i s p a t t e r n may be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h c e r t a i n e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s , contrary to other o b j e c t i v e s , or a com-b i n a t i o n of consistency and c o n t r a r i n e s s . This l a t t e r circumstance would l i k e l y r e s u l t as a consequence of a t r a i n i n g procedure based on vague and undefined o b j e c t i v e s . However, given the d e l i n e a t i o n of d e s i r e d g o a l s , the c r e a t i o n of a set may predispose the i n d i v i d u a l to respond i n congruence w i t h these goals and to t r a n s f e r t h i s p r e d i s p o s i t i o n to s i t u a t i o n s that are s i m i l a r i n environment to the t r a i n i n g procedures. I f an e d u c a t i o n a l program creates a set w i t h i n an i n d i v i d u a l to respond s i m i l a r l y across l i k e s i t u a t i o n s , then t r a n s f e r w i l l occur at l e a s t across a narrow range. However, f u r t h e r t r a n s f e r to r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s i s necessary to f u l f i l l Bloom's c r i t e r i a of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a program. Y e t , most people f i n d i t almost impossible to solv e r e a l l i f e problems w i t h any c o n s i s t e n c y , r e g a r d l e s s of academic a b i l i t y or t r a i n i n g procedures. But common obs e r v a t i o n would i n d i c a t e that i n d i v i d u a l s i n general tend to avoid r e a l problem s o l v i n g . When presented w i t h problems, they u s u a l l y apply a l i m i t e d stock of techniques to them and are f r e q u e n t l y s a t i s f i e d i f a p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n i s obtained. I f the techniques do not work, there i s a st r o n g tendency e i t h e r to reorder the problem completely, or to escape from i t e n t i r e l y . (Bloom, 1956, pp. 42-43) A major o b j e c t i v e of our e d u c a t i o n a l system i s the t r a n s f e r of l e a r n i n g from the school environment to more r e a l i s t i c problems, yet i t seems unable to provide enough or adequate s t r a t e g i e s f o r an i n d i v i d u a l to r e a l i z e t h i s g o a l . I f t r a n s f e r of l e a r n i n g i s to be r e t a i n e d as an e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e , then i t i s necessary to describe t r a i n i n g procedures t h a t develop n o v e l and more adequate s t r a t e g i e s f o r the i n d i v i d u a l i n h i s everyday l i f e . The wide discrepancy between d e s i r e d t r a n s f e r of l e a r n i n g and a c t u a l l i f e performance must be accounted f o r i n the development of these new t r a i n i n g programs. A large amount of educational i n t e r e s t has recently been generated i n the area of moral education, value s i t u a t i o n s , and r e a l l i f e problems. In the past the p u b l i c school system has ove r t l y avoided t h i s area, but through the schools' and teachers' a t t i t u d e s and actions, and through the values implied i n the curriculum, the values of our society have been co v e r t l y trans-mitted. Presently, with the view that our society has l o s t the a b i l i t y to transmit s o c i a l l y appropriate values with any con-sistency, the educational system has begun research i n t h i s area to attempt development and implementation of programs designed to enhance an i n d i v i d u a l ' s understanding and a b i l i t y i n dealing with value s i t u a t i o n s and problems. A large number of these researchers (Coombs, 1971; Meux, 1971; Kohlberg & Mayer, 1972) are approaching the problem of values education through the development of c r i t i c a l , deductive s k i l l s to be learned by t h e i r students. For example, Meux (1971) has developed an i n t r i c a t e system of value analysis based on the d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g a b i l i t y of students to reason deductively through value problems. It i s the b e l i e f of these researchers that the development of l o g i c a l and c r i t i c a l thought i s the most appropriate way to handle 5 i s s u e s i n v o l v i n g moral or value d e c i s i o n s . I t i s f e l t that development of c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g w i l l enable the student to r a t i o n a l l y encounter and solve problems i n h i s everyday l i f e . These c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g s k i l l s are thought to be h e a v i l y c o g n i t i v e i n nature ( S c r i v e n , 1975; Hoffman, 1970), and so the t r a i n i n g procedures are h i g h l y c o g n i t i v e . These s k i l l s are a s e r i e s o f s t r a t e g i e s and techniques to be learned by the i n d i v i d u a l so t h a t he w i l l be b e t t e r able to analyze h i s value problems. These s t r a t e g i e s i n c l u d e the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of arguments i n t o t h e i r l o g i c a l components, the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of f a c t u a l , v a l u e , and i n f e r e n t i a l statements, 'the ranking and o r d e r i n g of value arguments, the u t i l i z a t i o n of c o n s i s t e n t systems f o r the judgement of value c o n f l i c t s , and many other s t r a t e g i e s . The purpose of t h i s study i s to examine the appropriateness of t r a i n i n g procedures which u t i l i z e as t h e i r main approach the development of h i g h l y c o g n i t i v e , c r i t i c a l s k i l l s i n students. To examine t h i s problem a set of deductive reasoning t a s k s , which d i f f e r e d i n content area, were administered to s u b j e c t s who had already acquired a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of s k i l l i n deductive a n a l y s i s . The e f f e c t of content on the s u b j e c t s ' performances was analyzed to d i s c o v e r i f these t r a i n e d s u b j e c t s were c o n s i s -t e n t l y able to u t i l i z e t h e i r learned s t r a t e g i e s across these d i f f e r i n g content areas. 6 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Transfer of learning. Given a c e r t a i n t r a i n i n g procedure, t r a n s f e r of learning can be defined as the a b i l i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l to perform a serie s of tasks that are s i m i l a r to the t r a i n i n g tasks, yet d i f f e r e n t from them to a c e r t a i n degree. This degree of differe n c e can be very broad or very narrow. This study deals with a narrow range of differences between t r a i n i n g procedures and performance measures. Since these tasks are equivalent on the deductive reasoning dimension, then i n d i v i d u a l developmental differences i n rate of learning w i l l not be a f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g the subject's performance on t h i s dimension. L o g i c a l a n a l y s i s . This i s concerned with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a conclusion and the evidence given to support i t . I t deals with arguments and inferences and distinguishes those which are l o g i c a l l y correct from those which are not (Salmon, 1973). Symbolic form. I f p, then q. P. Therefore, q. (Salmon, 1973) Neutral v e r b a l form. I f Smith f a i l s h i s En g l i s h exam, then he w i l l be d i s q u a l i f i e d f o r the homecoming game. ! Smith f a i l s h i s English exam. Therefore, Smith w i l l be d i s q u a l i f i e d f o r the homecoming game. Valued v e r b a l form. I f homosexuals are human, then they are moral. Homosexuals are human. Therefore, homosexuals are moral. A l l of the above forms are l o g i c a l l y c o r r e c t and are exact copies of one another i n terms of l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s . R a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s Study In t h i s study i t i s the n o t i o n of t r a n s f e r of l e a r n i n g , as p r e v i o u s l y d e f i n e d , t h a t i s explored. A l l s u b j e c t s are s i m i l a r l y t r a i n e d and are then given a s e r i e s of tasks t h a t are i d e n t i c a l to each other i n l o g i c a l content, but d i f f e r from each other i n format. The l e t t e r s S, N, and V stand f o r symbolic form ( S ) , n e u t r a l form (N), and valued form(V). The symbolic form i s most l i k e the t r a i n i n g program and i n f a c t w i l l p rovide b a s e l i n e data as to the e f f i c i e n c y of the t r a i n i n g method. The a b i l i t y to look at problems i n a l o g i c a l manner, t h a t i s , to analyze the s i t u a t i o n according to l o g i c a l r u l e s , i s f o r most people dependent upon a c e r t a i n degree of s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g . Those people who are w e l l t r a i n e d i n l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s have reached an e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l w e l l above the average and have achieved the c a p a b i l i t y f o r h i g h l y c r i t i c a l thought. I t could be assumed, then, that these people should best be able to l o g i c a l l y handle simple problems that are s i t u a t i o n a l l y s i m i l a r . 8 Is the i n d i v i d u a l t r a i n e d i n value a n a l y s i s as able to d e a l w i t h h e a v i l y value loaded s i t u a t i o n s as w i t h l e s s valued, more n e u t r a l s i t u a t i o n s ? More s p e c i f i c a l l y , across a s e r i e s of t r a n s f e r tasks whose range i s very narrow (S to N to V) i s performance dependent upon the nature of the t e s t form, that i s , i s performance across forms equal? The o b j e c t of t h i s study was to t e s t the p r e d i c t i o n t h a t performances of the same i n d i v i d u a l across the three t e s t forms, which are e q u i v a l e n t i n l o g i c a l content, w i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r . Since i t i s f e l t that a b i l i t y i n l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s i s a f f e c t e d by the value content of the problem, i t i s hypothesized that g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n c e s between the symbolic, n e u t r a l , and valued c o n d i t i o n s would occur at the valued c o n d i t i o n due to the assumed added emotional component at t h i s c o n d i t i o n . 9 CHAPTER 2 Review of the L i t e r a t u r e and S p e c i f i c Objectives of th i s Study In t h i s chapter -a review of the l i t e r a t u r e pertinent to the proposed research w i l l be presented. Two areas w i l l be dealt with -the l i t e r a t u r e surrounding the development and implementation of educational p o l i c i e s i n the area of values education, s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d to the enhancement of c r i t i c a l t hinking a b i l i t i e s , and a b r i e f overview of l o g i c a l systems, how they operate, and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , the r e l a t i o n s h i p of v a l i d i t y and tru t h . The s p e c i f i c objectives of th i s study w i l l also be stated. Moral and Values Education Coombs (1971) has l i s t e d four major objectives of value analysis i n the classroom. They are: 1. To teach students that values can be rated. 2. To help students make the most r a t i o n a l , defensible value judgement poss i b l e . 3. To equip students with the capacity and i n c l i n a t i o n to make that judgement. 4. To teach students group dynamics and cooperation i n a r r i v i n g at a common value j udgement. An elaborate system f o r r e s o l v i n g value c o n f l i c t s based on r a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s has been described by Meux (1971). He has 10 proposed the following p r i n c i p l e s as part of the r a t i o n a l process of value c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . 1. Analyze value c o n f l i c t s i n t o t h e i r l o g i c a l components. 2. D i f f e r e n t i a t e l o g i c a l components of the value analysis to reduce d i f f e r e n c e s . 3. Reinterpret value objects, c r i t e r i a , p r i n c i p l e s , and s i t u a t i o n s to reduce d i f f e r e n c e s . 4. Appeal to epistemic rules wherever relevant. Smith (1963) has attempted to show that since l o g i c i s r e l a t e d to language, and language i s the essence of teaching, i t i s necessary to teach l o g i c i t s e l f to the students, as w e l l as having the teachers s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l trained i n t h i s area. Thus, the emphasis of these three researchers i s on the development of l o g i c a l systems. Conklin (1974) has stated that the function of education i s to help the student c l a r i f y h i s own values, b e l i e f s , and thought through a system of c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s , so h i s actions w i l l at l e a s t be personally r a t i o n a l . He f e e l s that education should give people the f a i t h that r e a l r a t i o n a l i t y e x i s t s and the z e a l to pursue i t . A programmed text f o r the tasks i n the value analysis as proposed by Meux and Chadwick (1971) has been developed by Casper (1971). It i s divided into a s e r i e s of s i x separate lesson units comprising the following areas: ratings and d e s c r i p t i o n s , 11 c r i t e r i o n s , r anking and grading, l o g i c and p r i n c i p l e s , p r i n c i p l e statements, and comparison c l a s s and p o i n t of view. The c o g n i t i v e developmental approach to moral development i s best represented by P i a g e t and Kohlberg (Hoffman, 1970; Kohlberg, 1971). Kohlberg and Mayer (1972) argue f o r a s e q u e n t i a l development of the c h i l d aided by guidance from and adherence to a set of u n i v e r s a l t r u t h s . By f o l l o w i n g r a t i o n a l , e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l be most able to a r r i v e at the r a t i o n a l l y c o r r e c t d e c i s i o n . A l l o w i n g the c h i l d to progress on h i s own, guided by these p r i n c i p l e s , w i l l r e s u l t i n the c h i l d a c h i e v i n g a greater l e v e l of moral development. Kohlberg and Mayer s t a t e t h a t the development of l o g i c a l and c r i t i c a l thought w i l l r e s u l t i n a broader s e t of moral v a l u e s . Kohlberg and Mayer, Coombs, Meux, C o n k l i n , Chadwick, Casper, and Smith a l l agree on the need to develop r a t i o n a l , c r i t i c a l thought through which value d e c i s i o n s and judgements w i l l be made more thoroughly and e a s i l y . E l aborate i n s t r u c t i o n a l systems f o r classroom implementation of i n c r e a s i n g the scope and a b i l i t y f o r c r i t -i c a l thought have been developed. One i n p a r t i c u l a r w i l l be discussed below. A note from the A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Values Education and Research (AVER, Note 1), o p e r a t i n g at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, describes the major questions to be d e a l t w i t h through i t s research. 12 These are: 1. How do people reason about d i f f e r e n t kinds of questions? 2. What s k i l l s , ' a b i l i t i e s , c a p a b i l i t i e s , and concepts must people master to make v a r i o u s kinds of value judgements i n a r a t i o n a l way? 3. What f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e the l i k e l i h o o d that r a t i o n a l ways of reasoning and a c t i n g w i l l be adopted? The s t r e s s i s again on the development of r a t i o n a l ways of reasoning to master value problems. I t l o g i c a l l y f o l l o w s t h a t a t r a i n i n g program that emphasizes the means f o r a c q u i r i n g t h i s type of c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s would g r e a t l y f a c i l i t a t e people f a c i n g value questions. The AVER t r a i n i n g program (Note 2, Note 3) are a combination of "Kohlbergian" programs (Rest, 1974), and a more fo r m a l , c r i t i c a l approach to value problems through implementation of r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . The AVER t e s t i n g program (Note 2, Note 3) has y i e l d e d some f a s c i n a t i n g and c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s . One of the t e s t s used was a reasoning t e s t c a l l e d the C o n d i t i o n a l Reasoning Test. I t co n s i s t e d of two sentence arguments and a c o n c l u s i o n , and the student was to decide i f the co n c l u s i o n was sound or unsound reasoning.; For example: Suppose you know t h a t : A l l Indians are human beings. A l l human beings deserve to be t r e a t e d f a i r l y and w i t h r e s p e c t . Would i t be sound or unsound reasoning to conclude t h a t : A l l Indians deserve to be t r e a t e d f a i r l y and w i t h respect. 13 The t e s t items were e q u a l l y d i v i d e d i n t o n e u t r a l and non n e u t r a l , valued items. I t was found t h a t o v e r a l l performance on the n e u t r a l items was s u p e r i o r to that on the non n e u t r a l items. On a s i m i l a r t e s t i n 1975 (AVER, Note 3) only valued items were used. I t was found that there was t o t a l t e s t improvement as a r e s u l t of t r a i n i n g , but some item scores improved w h i l e others d e c l i n e d . There are some i n d i c a t i o n s from these f i n d i n g s t h a t a c r i t i c a l , deductive t r a i n i n g program aids n e u t r a l argument a n a l y s i s and reasoning, but i s i n c o n s i s t e n t i n a i d i n g value argument a n a l y s i s and reasoning. L o g i c a l Deduction In the i n t r o d u c t o r y l o g i c course taught a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, the i n i t i a l c l a s s periods are given to a d i s c u s s i o n of the n o t i o n of v a l i d i t y and t r u t h . In elementary textbooks on symbolic l o g i c (Lambert & van Fraassen, 1972; Salmon, 1973; Resnick, 1970) the i n t r o d u c t o r y chapters a l s o deal w i t h t h i s same t o p i c . The d e f i n i t i o n of v a l i d i t y i s u s u a l l y given by a d e f i n i t i o n of i n v a l i d i t y . An i n v a l i d argument i s one whose premises (statements of an argument) are a l l t r u e and whose c o n c l u s i o n i s f a l s e . The d i s t i n c t i o n between the t r u t h o f the statements and the v a l i d i t y of an argument i s most s i g n i f i c a n t . Statements can be true or f a l s e , w h i l e arguments are e i t h e r v a l i d or i n v a l i d , but n e i t h e r true nor f a l s e . The system of deductive l o g i c i s p r i m a r i l y 14 concerned w i t h the l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between statements comprising an argument, and l e s s concerned w i t h t h e i r a c t u a l t r u t h or f a l s i t y . Arguments can be v a l i d even though t h e i r statements are f a l s e . For example: I f s i l v e r were gol d , then everyone would be r i c h . ( f a l s e ) S i l v e r i s gold. ( f a l s e ) So everyone w i l l be r i c h . ( f a l s e ) (Resnick, 1970) This d i f f e r e n c e between v a l i d i t y of the argument and t r u t h of the statements i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t i d e a to be mastered before any system of deductive l o g i c can be learned. Once t h i s i s accomplished the p a r t i c u l a r deductive system can then be f o l l o w e d . O b jectives of t h i s Study There has been a l a r g e amount of research that has occurred i n the development of s t r a t e g i e s and p r a c t i c e s to i n c r e a s e the student's a b i l i t i e s at c r i t i c a l , deductive a n a l y s i s i n order to provide him w i t h c e r t a i n s k i l l s that have been deduced to be a necessary p r e r e q u i s i t e to engaging value problems s u c c e s s f u l l y . But i s s k i l l i n deductive reasoning s u f f i c i e n t to enable an i n d i v i d u a l to b e t t e r handle h i s value problems? The purpose of t h i s study i s to t e s t the a b i l i t y of w e l l t r a i n e d , u n i v e r s i t y age students to handle v a l u e , n e u t r a l , and symbolic problems. I f these students are asked to determine the v a l i d i t y or i n v a l i d i t y of an argument, then the t r u t h of the premises should not matter. I t i s the major contention of t h i s paper that the t r u t h of the premises i s the o v e r r i d i n g concern i n 4 15 value i s s u e s and t h i s precludes the p o s s i b i l i t y of d i s c e r n i n g v a l i d i t y o b j e c t i v e l y . P e r s o n a l i n p u t w i l l be more important i n the f i n a l d e c i s i o n than e x i s t i n g l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e s . That i s , the s t r a t e g i e s that have been learned are u s e f u l i n determining the n o t i o n of l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y , but are not u s e f u l i n determining the n o t i o n of t r u t h or f a l s i t y of statements. The t r u t h of a statement i s d e a l t w i t h through the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l b e l i e f s , a t t i t u d e s , v a l u e s , and morals. The a d d i t i o n a l impact of the emotive nature of the value c o n d i t i o n w i l l cause an i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n p e r s o n a l performance. Moreover, t h i s p e r s o n a l or emotive i n p u t can operate across tasks that are very near to the t r a i n i n g procedures, so that i f t r a n s f e r of l e a r n i n g does not occur across t h i s narrow range, i t i s l i k e l y that l i t t l e t r a n s f e r w i l l occur to s i t u a t i o n s t h a t are more remote from the t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n , such as, r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s . 16 CHAPTER 3 Method In t h i s chapter the s p e c i f i c methodology of t h i s experiment w i l l be discussed. In p a r t i c u l a r , reference w i l l be made to the sample used, to the development of the t e s t measures, to the development of scoring c r i t e r i a f o r the measures, to the act u a l procedures performed during the c o l l e c t i o n of the data, and to the design paradigm which t h i s experiment followed. Subjects The subjects were a sample of U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia students e n r o l l e d i n the elementary l o g i c course conducted by the philosophy department. The subjects were taken from two cla s s sections - f i f t e e n i n one, and seventeen i n the other. This l o g i c course (Philosophy 302) i s a b a s i c introductory course i n symbolic and verbal l o g i c , and i n the development of a l o g i c a l system based on n a t u r a l deduction. The reference textbook was by Lambert and van Fraassen (1972). At the time of t e s t i n g the students had been e n r o l l e d i n t h i s one semester ( f i f t e e n weeks) course f o r twelve weeks. The course i t s e l f c onstituted the t r a i n i n g program f o r these students. Since eighty per cent of the course had been completed at the time of t e s t i n g , the subjects were s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l trained f o r the degree of task d i f f i c u l t y i n t h i s experiment. 17 The t o t a l sample s i z e was 32, randomly s p l i t i n t o s i x groups c o n s i s t i n g of 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, and 6 subjects. Test Development The development of the t e s t measures began a f t e r an i n v e s t i g a -t i o n of the l o g i c l i t e r a t u r e and consultation with the i n s t r u c t o r s of the l o g i c course. A f t e r i t was understood what the course s p e c i f i c a l l y e n t a i l e d , an eight question t e s t of symbolic l o g i c was constructed. With the i n s t r u c t o r s observations, the t e s t was modified to enable the students to perform at l e a s t at the 75 per cent l e v e l (6.0 out of 8.0), as judged by the i n s t r u c t o r s . This completed form constituted form S - an eight question t e s t of symbolic l o g i c , asking the students f o r the v a l i d i t y or i n v a l i d i t y of the arguments. (This t e s t along with form N and form V are located i n Appendix A.) On the b a s i s of form S, the two v e r b a l forms were constructed. For each symbolic argument, a n e u t r a l and a valued argument were devised each c o n s i s t i n g of exactly the same l o g i c a l content. Thus, form N consisted of eight n e u t r a l arguments and form V consisted of eight valued arguments, both i n v e r b a l sentence format. A pool of these sixteen items was given to three external observers to rate as e i t h e r 1 — low emotive content, r e l a t i v e l y n e u t r a l , or 2 — high emotive content, high value loading. Each item was rated 18 by a l l three observers and one hundred per cent concurrence was obtained. A l l eight low emotive items constituted the ne u t r a l form N, while a l l eight high emotive items constituted the valued form V. The observers were a l l u n i v e r s i t y graduates, e i t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l l y involved i n education or extending t h e i r l e a r n i n g through graduate degree programs. Since the t o t a l number of words used i n each argument might have confounded the r e s u l t s , t h i s v a r i a t i o n i n verbosity was con-sidered i n the construction of forms N and V. Although not exactly equal, the mean argument length f o r form N was 40.8 words. The mean argument length f o r form V was 47.6 words. This d i f f e r e n c e was not s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , t (14) = .3, Of prime importance to t h i s study was the equivalence of l o g i c a l content f o r each argument. Three l o g i c i a n s determined the equ a l i t y of l o g i c a l content across the three forms by deciding the v a l i d i t y or i n v a l i d i t y of the arguments on form N and form V, and by a comparison with form S. There was 100 per cent concurrence by a l l l o g i c i a n s across a l l forms. As w e l l , the preliminary i n s t r u c t i o n s were the same on a l l forms. These i n s t r u c t i o n s were developed on the basis of asking f o r personal opinions i n regard to the answering of the questions on a l l forms. Since the notion of v a l i d i t y i s a l o g i c a l constant over a l l other dimensions, such as, 19 truth of premises or content area, then "personal opinions" was only a diversionary f a c t o r unrelated to v a l i d i t y . The i n s t r u c t i o n s on a l l three test forms were i d e n t i c a l and are included i n Appendix A with each test form. The scoring c r i t e r i a f o r a l l three forms was the same, that i s , a ' I ' was given f o r the correct answer (as determined by the i n s t r u c t o r s , e i t h e r v a l i d or i n v a l i d depending upon question), and a '0' f o r an i n c o r r e c t answer. Eight was the highest score obtainable on each form. Procedures Previous to the t e s t i n g sessions the form order had been randomly assigned over the f i r s t and subsequent days. As arranged with the i n s t r u c t o r s of the course, t e s t i n g was performed over a two week period i n three class sessions. The l a s t 20 minutes of class time was assigned f o r the experiment. The t e s t i n g was conducted by the author without any assistance from the i n s t r u c t o r s . The following i s an abreviated d e s c r i p t i o n of the i n s t r u c t i o n s which were given on the f i r s t day. (A complete d e s c r i p t i o n i s included i n Appendix B.) The examiner b r i e f l y described h i s area of i n t e r e s t as problem s o l v i n g and thanked the students for t h e i r cooperation. He stressed h i s i n t e r e s t i n the subjects' personal opinions and honesty and stated that t h i s information would be 20 anonymous and c o n f i d e n t i a l . The students were asked not to t a l k amongst themselves about the experiment u n t i l a f t e r the t h i r d t e s t i n g session. The tests were then administered and as each subject f i n i s h e d he handed i n h i s paper and l e f t . On the two subsequent sessions the examiner stressed h i s i n t e r e s t i n personal opinions and then administered the questionnaire. Design A l l subjects were given a l l three t e s t forms i n random order. Therefore, the design was a two f a c t o r i a l (form type by form order) repeated measures design. In the repeated measures design, form order was represented as treatment e f f e c t B, form type was represented as treatment e f f e c t A, and subjects were represented by e f f e c t S. This design followed the format as described by Dayton (1970, p. 293) f o r evaluating carry-over e f f e c t s i n a repeated measures design. 21 CHAPTER 4 Results Table 1 represents a summary of the design paradigm for t h i s experiment with c e l l and marginal means and c e l l standard deviations included. A two f a c t o r i a l repeated measures analysis of variance with unequal c e l l s i z e s was performed on the obtained data. Analysis of Variance The symbols used i n the analysis of variance are defined as: 1. Factor A = form type (three l e v e l s ) . 2. Factor B = form order ( s i x l e v e l s ) . 3. Factor S = subjects (32 s u b j e c t s ) . Table 2 i s a summary table of the analysis of variance f o r a three by s i x f a c t o r i a l design with repeated measures on the A dimension, with unequal c e l l s i z e s . The t e s t of form order was not s i g n i f i c a n t , F (5, 26) = 1.1416, p ^ .35. Since the design i s repeated measures, assumptions of the homogeneity of variance and covariance must be dealt with f o r f a c t o r A and for the i n t e r a c t i o n f a c t o r AB (Dayton, 1970; Winer, 1962). To do t h i s , the within subjects tests were c a r r i e d out with conservative degrees of freedom. Thus, f a c t o r A was evaluated with 1 and 26 degrees of freedom, ^^F (1, 26) = 7.72, as w e l l as 22 Table 1 The Design Paradigm with C e l l and Marginal Means and C e l l Standard Deviations Form Type (A) Form S N V Order (B) (n = 32) (n = 32) (n = 32) Marginal S N V 5.75 a 5.75 4.25 5.25 (n = 4) 1.26b 1.96 .96 S V N 7. 17 6.67 6.63 6.72 (n = 6) .75 1.37 1.37 N S V 6.67 5.67 4.33 5.56 (n = 6) .82 1.75 1.75 N V S 6.60 6.20 4.20 5.67 (n = 5) 1.52 .84 1.48 V S N 6.83 5.50 5.33 5.89 (n = 6) 1.17 2.07 1.75 V N S 5.80 5.80 5.00 5.33 (n = 5) 1.64 1.79 1.73 Marginal 6.53 5.94 4.97 5.81 a C e l l means. k C e l l standard deviations. Table 2 Analysis of Variance Summary Table f o r a 6 By 3 F a c t o r i a l Design with Repeated Measures on the A Dimension Source df Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Among Subjects B a 5 21.4748 4.2949 1.1416 S b 26 97.8166 3.7622 Within Subjects A c 2 39.3637 19.6819 15.0509* AB 10 11.5207 1.1521 .8810 AS 52 67.99997 1. 3077 T o t a l 95 238.625 f a c t o r B = b F a c t o r S = c F a c t o r A = *p < .01 form order subjects form type 24 w i t h 2 and 52 degrees of freedom, F (2, 52) = 5.10. The F value f o r the main e f f e c t of form type was computed as 15.0509, which i s greater than, the conservative and usual F r a t i o s . Thus, form type i s s i g n i f i c a n t at beyond the .01 l e v e l . For the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t AB, the computed value of F i s below 1, which was not s i g n i f i c a n t at both the conservative (df = 1, 26) and re g u l a r (df = 2, 52) l e v e l s . Since the t e s t s of both the A and AB e f f e c t s were unambiguous at both the usu a l and conservative degrees of freedom, the t e s t s f o r the homogeneity of va r i a n c e and covariance were not necessary. Thus, the main e f f e c t of form type was s i g n i f i c a n t at beyond the .01 l e v e l , w h i l e the e f f e c t of form order, B, and the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t of form order by form type were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Post hoc comparisons of the mean d i f f e r e n c e s on f a c t o r A, form type, were computed according to Ma r a s c u i l o (1971). The standard e r r o r s f o r each of the mean c o n t r a s t s were computed. Then the c o n t r a s t s were compared to a Scheffe'value w i t h an F at the .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e w i t h 2 and 52 degrees of freedom. These r e s u l t s are i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 3. I t can be seen that c o n t r a s t s 2 and 3 were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l , w h i l e c o n t r a s t 1 was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Therefore, the s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t of form type can be a t t r i b u t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s between form V and form N and to d i f f e r e n c e s between Table 3 Tests on Contrasts Using the Scheffe'Method Contrasts Mean Square R e s i d u a l Standard E r r o r Scheffe Mean D i f f e r e n c e 1. x s 1.3078 .2859 .915 .59 2. 1.3078 .2859 .915 .98* 3. x s 1.3078 .2859 .915 1.57* a X = mean score on form S = 6.53. = mean score on form N = 5.94 c " = mean score on form V = 4.97 *p < .01 26 form V and form S. The mean of the valued form s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r s from the means of the n e u t r a l and symbolic forms, whereas the means of the symbolic and n e u t r a l forms do not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r from each other. Table 4 i l l u s t r a t e s a f u r t h e r post hoc comparison of the v a r i a n c e . In t h i s a n a l y s i s , performance scores on the symbolic form were blocked at the mean (6.53) to form two groups — one group h i g h i n performance on the symbolic form (n = 19), and the other group low i n performance on the symbolic form (n = 13). The a n a l y s i s then compares each of these groups' performances on the n e u t r a l and valued forms. The r e s u l t s show that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t F at the .01 l e v e l f o r form type, a s i g n i f i c a n t F at the .05 l e v e l f o r the high-low dimension, and a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t F f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . This l a s t r e s u l t suggests that i n the high group, the d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r performance on the n e u t r a l and valued forms was no d i f f e r e n t than the low group's performance d i f f e r e n c e s between the n e u t r a l and valued forms. Content Area Table 5 shows the number of e r r o r s on each l o g i c a l l y com-parable item across a l l three forms, and the content area of that i tem on the valued form. For example, number 1 d e a l t w i t h b e l i e f i n god; there were 8 e r r o r s on the valued item, 1 e r r o r on the Table 4 Analysis of Variance Summary Table f o r a 2 By 2 F a c t o r i a l Design with Repeated Measures on the A Dimension Source df ' Sum of Squares Mean Square F Among Subjects B 3 1 20.0508 20.0508 6.43* s b 30 93.44329 3.1144 Within Subjects A C 1 17.83665 17.83665 23.6268** AB 1 .8366 .8366 1.1082 AS 30 22.6477 .7549 high and low groups on symbolic form. subjects. form type. Factor B = b F a c t o r S = c Factor A = *p <.05 **p <.01 28 Table 5 Number of E r r o r s Across Equivalent Items on a l l Forms and Content Area of Valued Items Item Form S Form N Form V Number Content Area 1. 2 1 8 B e l i e f i n god 2. 4 11 12 Rape 3. 8 7 12 A b o r t i o n 4. 0 1 8 Homosexuality 5. 24 22 18 Homosexuality 6. 0 1 8 Sexual Response 7. 4 4 10 R a c i a l P r e j u d i c e 8. 1 3 12 B e l i e f i n god Forms N and V are reordered so t h a t e q u i v a l e n t questions across a l l three forms are comparable. 29 n e u t r a l item, and 2 errors on the symbolic item. The d i r e c t i o n of increasing number of errors from the symbolic to ne u t r a l to valued forms i s the same for seven of eight items. Only item 5 had t h i s d i r e c t i o n a l i t y reversed. Summary The analysis of variance f o r a 3 by 6 f a c t o r i a l design with repeated measures y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t of form type. Neither form order nor the i n t e r a c t i o n of form order by form type was s i g n i f i c a n t . Post hoc comparisons, using the Scheffe' method, on the diff e r e n c e s among the form type means re s u l t e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the valued form and both the ne u t r a l and symbolic forms. The n e u t r a l and symbolic forms did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r from each other. Further post hoc analyses y i e l d e d a no n - s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between blocked high-low groups on the symbolic form and performance on the n e u t r a l and valued forms. In seven of the eight equivalent cross form items, the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of increasing number of errors went from symbolic to n e u t r a l to valued form. 30 CHAPTER 5 Disc u s s i o n s and Conclusions The general o b j e c t i v e of t h i s study was to describe the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a b i l i t y i n deductive t h i n k i n g and c e r t a i n types of problem s i t u a t i o n s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the e f f e c t s of emotive content on l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s was observed. The s u b j e c t s f o r t h i s experiment were u n i v e r s i t y students t r a i n e d i n l o g i c a l , deductive reasoning. The types of problems ranged from the a b s t r a c t , symbolic mode, through a r e l a t i v e l y n e u t r a l , low emotive, v e r b a l mode, to a h i g h l y emotive, value loaded mode. For each problem on the symbolic form, there was an exact d u p l i c a t e i n terms of l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s on the other two forms. As the a n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e i n d i c a t e s , the same s u b j e c t s performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the value problems as compared to the other two types of problems (which d i d not d i f f e r from each o t h e r ) . This i n d i c a t e s support f o r the major hypothesis of t h i s study. Since the a p p l i c a t i o n of s t r a t e g i e s acquired i n t r a i n i n g d i d not seem to occur to any great extent when h i g h l y emotive m a t e r i a l was used as a s t i m u l u s , the p o s s i b i l i t y of a p p l i c a t i o n s to s i t u a t i o n s that are c l o s e r to r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s i s d o u b t f u l . This decrease i n performance on value problems can be a t t r i b u t e d to l a c k of use of l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e s , which are a v a i l a b l e , as demonstrated by the s u b j e c t s performance on the 31 n e u t r a l and symbolic forms. The design of the experiment was devised to c o n t r o l f o r a v a r i e t y of p o s s i b l e sources of v a r i a n c e . The order of having the t e s t s was randomly assigned and proved to be not s i g n i f i c a n t . The v a r i a n c e of the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between form order and form type was not s i g n i f i c a n t . In the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the t e s t forms N and V, wordiness was c o n t r o l l e d f o r . As w e l l , s i n c e the mean scores on the symbolic and n e u t r a l forms d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r from each other, the use of words as opposed to symbols d i d not c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the v a r i a n c e . Post hoc comparisons of h i g h and low symbolic performance groups y i e l d e d n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s . Thus, t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s showed l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t i a l t r a i n i n g e f f e c t s f o r these two groups of students. An a n a l y s i s of the number of e r r o r s on each e q u i v a l e n t item across forms showed i n t e r e s t i n g trends. On seven of the e i g h t items the number of e r r o r s was l a r g e r f o r the valued item than f o r the e q u i v a l e n t n e u t r a l and symbolic item. Item 5 showed opposite d i r e c t i o n a l r e s u l t s , p o s s i b l y due to the d i f f i c u l t y of t h i s item on the symbolic form. A l l t o p i c areas seemed to have a c e r t a i n e f f e c t , although no s t a t i s t i c a l analyses were done. The n o t i o n of the s o c i a l l y acceptable c o n c l u s i o n versus the v a l i d i t y or i n v a l i d i t y of an argument i s an area f o r f u t u r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . For example, the item on rape had a s o c i a l l y unacceptable c o n c l u s i o n ( t h e r e f o r e , 32 John has motive to rape), w h i l e the argument i s a v a l i d one. Larger number of items per content area, c o n t r o l f o r s o c i a l a c c e p t a b i l i t y of c o n c l u s i o n s , and i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t ' s a t t i t u d e v a r i a t i o n s are a l l t o p i c s f o r f u r t h e r research. E d u c a t i o n a l I m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s Study I t i s reasonable to assume th a t the major d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance can be a t t r i b u t e d to l a c k of deductive t h i n k i n g on the value q u e s t i o n s , that i s , not due to i n a b i l i t y but r a t h e r due to change i n approach. The s p e c i f i c nature of the problem determines the manner of attempting to r e s o l v e t h a t problem. For these students, t r a i n i n g i n deductive reasoning does not a i d them i n r a t i o n a l l y a r r i v i n g at l o g i c a l d e c i s i o n s on value problems because other f a c t o r s are o p e r a t i n g . In many ways t h i s s imulates the r e a l l i f e attempts at problem s o l v i n g , and the inadequacies i n s t r a t e g i e s and techniques used f o r h a n d l i n g these problems. Questions a r i s e as to what i s the nature of thought i n these s i t u a t i o n s , as w e l l as what are the e d u c a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of these r e s u l t s ? I f t r a n s f e r of l e a r n i n g to non-academic s i t u a t i o n s i s a v i a b l e goal of education, then research and development must lend i t s e l f to the r e a l i t i e s of everyday l i f e s i t u a t i o n s . Of c r i t i c a l importance to t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s the view of Smith (1963) as he 33 r e l a t e s h i s reasons f o r s t r e s s i n g the l o g i c a l mode i n education. He s t a t e s that teachers work w i t h words and statements, t h e i r meanings and r e l a t i o n s . The teacher deals w i t h signs and symbols and the l o g i c a l operations necessary f o r v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n . They do not work w i t h such p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes as p e r c e p t i o n , emotion, i n f e r e n c e , and conception, even though they may be going  on at the same time as i n s t r u c t i o n . Smith concludes that the s u p e r i o r teacher w i l l be one who understands l o g i c and can teach h i s students through a l o g i c a l system. The development of an e x c e l l e n t l o g i c a l system i n an i n d i v i d u a l i s a p a r t of the f u n c t i o n of education, not the e n t i r e f u n c t i o n . I t would be unwise to n e g l e c t processes l i k e emotion and p e r c e p t i o n and consider them as secondaries i n the education of any i n d i v i d u a l . Onceagain, t h i s study has attempted to c l a r i f y and s p e c i f y the inadequacies of l o g i c a l systems i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s . Hart (1975) expresses a general view of a l l s c h o o l i n g , and much of adult l i f e as worshipping r a t i o n a l , symbolized and v e r b a l i z e d modes of thought at the expense of n a t u r a l thought processes. De Bono (1972) s t a t e s that most people i n education continue to assume that e x c e l l e n c e i n l o g i c i s a l l t h a t i s needed i n t h i n k i n g , yet the importance of " p e r c e p t u a l t h i n k i n g " i s being purposely avoided. Perhaps the s t r o n g e s t statement of t h i s nature comes from Sperry (1975), the n e u r o l o g i s t who f i r s t discovered the s p l i t b r a i n phenomenon. 34 Our e d u c a t i o n a l system and modern s o c i e t y i n general (with i t s very heavy emphasis on communication and on e a r l y t r a i n i n g i n the three Rs) d i s c r i m i n a t e s a g a i n s t one whole h a l f of the b r a i n — the non-verbal, non-mathematical minor hemisphere, which has i t s own p e r c e p t u a l , mechanical, and s p a t i a l mode of apprehension and reasoning. In our present s c h o o l system the a t t e n t i o n given to the minor hemisphere of the b r a i n i s minimal compared w i t h the t r a i n i n g l a v i s h e d on the l e f t hemisphere. (Sperry, 1975, p. 33) Although h i g h l y s p e c u l a t i v e , recent n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l and p h y s i o l o g i c a l research i n the area of l a t e r a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of hemispheric f u n c t i o n i n g may a f f e c t e d u c a t i o n a l outlooks (Gazzaniga, 1970; L u r i a , 1973; Gardner, 1974; Hart, 1975; Sperry, 1975). These r e s u l t s are f a r from c o n c l u s i v e as y e t , but have suggested that a l a r g e p a r t of our b r a i n i s concerned w i t h other than l o g i c a l o p e r a t i o n s . The r i g h t s i d e of the b r a i n appears to p e r c e i v e t h i n g s i n a r e l a t i o n a l manner, not as p a r t s but as simultaneous wholes. In c e r t a i n problem s i t u a t i o n s there are d i f f e r e n c e s i n useable mental s t r a t e g i e s according to the p a r t i c u l a r manner of the problems. I f t h i s i s t r u e , then e d u c a t i o n a l procedures, as Sperry notes, may i n f a c t be e x c l u d i n g the t r a i n i n g of v a s t areas of the b r a i n . 35 This paper has s p e c i f i c a l l y focused on one segment of s c h o o l i n g , values education, and has attempted to e m p i r i c a l l y t e s t that emphasis on s e q u e n t i a l , deductive l o g i c and thought i s p o s s i b l y not compatible w i t h the e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e of t r a n s f e r of l e a r n i n g to l i f e l i k e s i t u a t i o n s . In t h i s experiment the data appear to support the n o t i o n t h a t a b i l i t y i n l o g i c i s i n s u f f i c i e n t by i t s e l f f o r the s o l u t i o n of simple value problems. The reasoning of Smith and those p r e v i o u s l y mentioned who s t r e s s the l o g i c a l , s e q u e n t i a l mode of thought i s not e n t i r e l y reasonable f o r the development of e d u c a t i o n a l programs to a i d the i n d i v i d u a l i n value s i t u a t i o n s . Stress on c o g n i t i v e , c r i t i c a l a b i l i t i e s i s only one area of education and other modes and processes cannot be excluded. The impact of emotion, p e r c e p t i o n , i n f e r e n c e , r e l a t i o n s h i p s , non-verbal communication, and a f f e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g cannot be i s o l a t e d from the s c h o o l environment i f t r a n s f e r of l e a r n i n g i s to be a r e a l i s t i c e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e . 36 Reference Notes 1. A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Values Education and Research. An i n t r o d u c t i o n  to the aims and a c t i v i t i e s of AVER. Note prepared, 1974. 2. A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Values Education and Research. Unpublished r e s u l t s of the Surrey Study, 1974. 3. A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Values Education and Research. Unpublished r e s u l t s of the Surrey Study, 1975. 37 References Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). Taxonomy of educational o b j e c t i v e s : The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay, 1956. Casper, G. G. A value model: A programmed text. In L. E. Metcalf (Ed.), Values education: Rationale, s t r a t e g i e s , and procedures (41st yearbook). Washington: National Council for the S o c i a l Studies, 1971. Chadwick, J . & Meux, M. Procedures f o r value a n a l y s i s . In L. E. Metcalf (Ed.), Values education: Rationale, s t r a t e g i e s , and procedures (41st yearbook). Washington: National Council f o r the S o c i a l Studies, 1971. Conklin, K. R. Rational action and education. Philosophy of education: Proceedings of the t h i r t i e t h annual meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society. Boston: Philosophy of Education Society, 1974. Coombs, J . R. Objectives of value a n a l y s i s . In L. E. Metcalf (Ed.), Values education: Rationale, s t r a t e g i e s , and procedures (41st yearbook). Washington: National Council for the S o c i a l Studies, 1971. Dayton, C. M. The design of educational experiments. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. De Bono, E. Children solve problems. London: Penguin Books, 1972. Gardner, H. The shattered mind. New York: Knopf, 1974. 38 Gazzaniga, M. S. The b i s e c t e d b r a i n . New York: Meredith, 1970. Hart, L. A. How the b r a i n works. New York: B a s i c Books, 1975. Hoffman, M. L. Moral development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of c h i l d psychology (volume I I , 3rd e d i t i o n ) . New York: Wiley and Sons, 1970. Kohlberg, L. From i s to ought. In T. M i s c h e l (Ed.), C o g n i t i v e development and epistemology. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1971. Kohlberg, L., & Mayer, R. Development as aim of education. Harvard E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 1972, 42. Lambert, K., & van Fraassen, B. C. D e r i v a t i o n and counterexample. C a l i f o r n i a : Dickenson, 1972. L u r i a , A. R. The working b r a i n . London: Penguin P r e s s , 1973. M a r a s c u i l o , L. A. S t a t i s t i c a l methods f o r b e h a v i o u r a l science research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Meux, M. R e s o l v i n g value c o n f l i c t s . In L. E. M e t c a l f (Ed.), Values education: R a t i o n a l e , s t r a t e g i e s , and procedures (41st yearbook). Washington: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l f o r the S o c i a l S t u d i e s , 1971. Resnick, M. D. Elementary l o g i c . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Rest, J. Developmental psychology as a guide to value education: A review of "Kohlbergian" programs. Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1974, 44, 241-259. Salmon, W. C. Logic. New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1973. 39 S c r i v e n , M. C o g n i t i v e moral education. P h i D e l t a Kappan, 1975, 56, 689-694. Smith, B. 0. L o g i c , - t h i n k i n g , and teaching. In J. P. DeCecco (Ed.), Human l e a r n i n g i n the s c h o o l . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t , & Winston, 1963. Sperry, R. W. L e f t - b r a i n , r i g h t - b r a i n . Saturday Review, 1975, 2, 30-33. Winer, B. J. S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Young, P. T. M o t i v a t i o n and emotion. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1961. Appendix A Form S I am i n t e r e s t e d i n f i n d i n g out how you, i n d i v i d u a l l y , respond to a v a r i e t y of questions. I would l i k e to know your p e r s o n a l opinions i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s . Therefore, a l l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t I r e c e i v e w i l l be anonymous and c o n f i d e n t i a l . Your responses on these questions are i n no way a s s o c i a t e d w i t h course grades. Your help i n answering a l l the questions as h o n e s t l y as p o s s i b l e w i l l be g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d . 41 Form S P e r s o n a l Opinion Questionnaire In t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e I am i n t e r e s t e d i n your p e r s o n a l opinions and b e l i e f s regarding the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s . Each question i s presented as a p a r t i c u l a r argument. Is i t your p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n that the f o l l o w i n g arguments are e i t h e r v a l i d or i n v a l i d ? Space i s provided beside or on the backside of each q u e s t i o n f o r any s p e c i f i c comments that you might want to make regarding your d e c i s i o n s . In the f o l l o w i n g arguments, i s i t your p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n that they are e i t h e r v a l i d or i n v a l i d ? ( C i r c l e your per s o n a l c h o i c e ) . Form S i . ( p & Q ) r>R ( P & Q ) • * R. 2. P "DQ P .*. R. P 3 Q P 0~1Q Q .'.P. V a l i d I n v a l i d V a l i d I n v a l i d V a l i d I n v a l i d V a l i d I n v a l i d ( P v Q ) " D R .'. fR "D 'P. V a l i d P 3 E S .'.P. V a l i d P D Q R v —IS R 3 — 1 Q P V a l i d ( P & Q ) -""">—1R ( P & Q ) «R. V a l i d I n v a l i d I n v a l i d I n v a l i d I n v a l i d Form N I am i n t e r e s t e d i n f i n d i n g out how you, i n d i v i d u a l l y , respond to a v a r i e t y of questions. I would l i k e to know your per s o n a l opinions i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s . Therefore, a l l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t I r e c e i v e w i l l be anonymous and c o n f i d e n t i a l . Your responses on these questions are i n no way a s s o c i a t e d w i t h course grades. Your help i n answering a l l the questions as h o n e s t l y as p o s s i b l e w i l l be g r e a t l y appreciated. 45 Form N P e r s o n a l Opinion Questionnaire In t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e I am i n t e r e s t e d i n your p e r s o n a l opinions and b e l i e f s regarding the f o l l o w i n g questions. Each question i s presented as a p a r t i c u l a r argument. Is i t your p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n that the f o l l o w i n g arguments are e i t h e r v a l i d or i n v a l i d ? Space i s provided beside or on the backside of each question f o r any s p e c i f i c comments that you might want to make reg a r d i n g your d e c i s i o n s . In the f o l l o w i n g arguments, i s i t your per s o n a l o p i n i o n that they are e i t h e r v a l i d or i n v a l i d ? ( C i r c l e your personal c h o i c e ) . 46 Form N 1. I f John p l a y s b a s e b a l l and comes home l a t e he w i l l not study f o r h i s upcoming exam. John p l a y s b a s e b a l l and does come home l a t e . Therefore, he w i l l not study f o r h i s upcoming exam. V a l i d I n v a l i d 2. I f i n November i t mainly r a i n s , then there w i l l be few suuny days. I f there are few sunny days, then the mountains are hidden from view most of the time. Since we know th a t the mountains are hidden from view most of the time, then we can assume that i n November i t mainly r a i n s . V a l i d I n v a l i d 3. I f the cat on the roof jumps, she w i l l l and on her f e e t . E i t h e r the cat i s b l a c h or she i s not a P e r s i a n . I f the cat i s b l a c k then she w i l l not land on her f e e t . I t i s a f a c t t h a t the cat on the roof jumped. Therefore, she i s P e r s i a n . V a l i d I n v a l i d 4. I f I work through t h i s problem q u i c k l y or i f I daydream, then the time w i l l pass e q u a l l y f a s t . I f i t i s not the case t h a t the time w i l l pass e q u a l l y f a s t then i t i s not the case t h a t I worked through t h i s problem q u i c k l y . V a l i d I n v a l i d 47 Form N 5. I f the sun i s s h i n i n g and the wind i s blowing then I w i l l be w h i s t l i n g a tune. The sun i s s h i n i n g and the wind i s blowing. Therefore, I w i l l be w h i s t l i n g a tune. V a l i d I n v a l i d 6. I f t h i s b a l l i s brown, then t h i s square i s b l u e . This b a l l i s not brown. Therefore, t h i s square i s not b l u e . V a l i d ' I n v a l i d 7. I f i n the town where I was born there l i v e d a man who s a i l e d the seas, then he t o l d me of h i s l i f e i n a y e l l o w submarine. I f he t o l d me of h i s l i f e , then we a l l l i v e i n a y e l l o w submarine. I t so happens t h a t i n the town where I was born there was a man who s a i l e d the seas. Therefore, we a l l l i v e i n a y e l l o w submarine. V a l i d I n v a l i d 8. I f the banjo has f i v e s t r i n g s , then you cannot hear the piano. But you can hear the piano. Therefore, the banjo has f i v e s t r i n g s . V a l i d I n v a l i d Form V I am i n t e r e s t e d i n f i n d i n g out how you, i n d i v i d u a l l y , respond to a v a r i e t y of questions. I would l i k e to know your per s o n a l opinions i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s . Therefore, a l l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t I r e c e i v e w i l l be anonymous and c o n f i d e n t i a l . Your responses on these questions are i n no way a s s o c i a t e d w i t h course grades. Your help i n answering a l l the questions as h o n e s t l y as p o s s i b l e w i l l be g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d . 49 Form V P e r s o n a l Opinion Questionnaire In t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e I am i n t e r e s t e d i n your per s o n a l opinions and b e l i e f s regarding the f o l l o w i n g questions. Each question i s presented as a p a r t i c u l a r argument. Is i t your p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n that the f o l l o w i n g arguments are e i t h e r v a l i d or i n v a l i d ? Space i s provided b e s i d e or on the backside of each question f o r any s p e c i f i c comments t h a t you might want to make regarding your d e c i s i o n s . In the f o l l o w i n g arguments, i s i t your p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n that they are e i t h e r v a l i d or i n v a l i d ? ( C i r c l e your p e r s o n a l c h o i c e ) . 50 Form V 1. I f homosexuality i s a mental i l l n e s s or i f homosexuals need p s y c h i a t r i c h e l p , then offenders should be i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d . Therefore, i f i t i s not the case that offenders should be i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d then i t i s not the case that homosexuality i s a mental i l l n e s s . V a l i d I n v a l i d 2. I f homosexuals ought to be able to marry, then they can be s a t i s f i e d human beings. I f they can be s a t i s f i e d human beings, then we should no longer o s t r a c i z e them. A c t u a l l y we should no longer o s t r a c i z e homosexuals, so t h e r e f o r e , they ought to be able to marry. V a l i d I n v a l i d 3. I f a two month o l d foetus has a h e a r t , eyes, and a f u n c t i o n i n g nervous system, then i t i s k i l l i n g a human l i f e to destroy i t . I t i s not the case t h a t a two month o l d foetus has a h e a r t , eyes, and a f u n c t i o n i n g nervous system. Therefore, i t i s not k i l l i n g a human l i f e to destroy i t . V a l i d I n v a l i d 51 Form V 4. I f the number of East Indians coming to Canada i s c o n t r o l l e d , then there w i l l be more jobs f o r Canadians. E i t h e r East Indians must work i n the north f o r f i v e years or they must not be allowed to come to Canada. If East Indians work i n the north f o r f i v e years then i t i s not the case that there w i l l be more jobs f o r Canadians. Since i t i s a fac t that the number of East Indians coming to Canada i s c o n t r o l l e d , therefore, East Indians should be allowed to come to Canada. V a l i d I n v a l i d 5. In 1972, i n the Andes Mountains, a plane crashed onto an empty snowfield. There were sixteen survivors l e f t amid the wreckage and the other bodies. A f t e r i n i t i a l emergency supplies ran out, there was nothing e l s e to eat except the bodies of the dead. Starvation was imminent. If you bel i e v e i n god and that to s a n c t i f y the s p i r i t you must bury the dead, then you must die. You bel i e v e i n god and the s a n c t i t y of the s p i r i t . Therefore, you must d i e . V a l i d I n v a l i d 6. I f you bel i e v e i n god and that to s a n c t i f y the s p i r i t you must not l e t your s e l f die, then you must not d i e . You bel i e v e i n god and the s a n c t i t y of the s p i r i t . Therefore, you must not die. V a l i d I n v a l i d 52 Form V 7. I f Anne i s h i t c h h i k i n g b r a l e s s , i n a see-through blouse, she i s being suggestive to rape. I f she i s suggestive to rape, then John has motive to rape. One day John sees Anne h i t c h h i k i n g b r a l e s s i n a see-through blouse. Therefore, John has motive to rape. V a l i d I n v a l i d 8. I f you are at l e a s t an adequate person, then you w i l l not reach orgasm i n every s i n g l e s e x u a l encounter. But you are reaching orgasm every s i n g l e time. Thus, of course, you are at l e a s t adequate. V a l i d I n v a l i d Appendix B 53 This i s a summary of the v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n s which were given to the s u b j e c t s p r i o r to the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the t e s t measures. The examiner introduced h i m s e l f and thanked the p r o f e s s o r and students f o r consenting to give up t h e i r time f o r t h i s experiment. The students were t o l d that there would be three sessions i n t o t a l . The examiner described h i s area of i n t e r e s t as i n d i v i d u a l d i f -ferences i n problem s o l v i n g . He s t a t e d h i s i n t e r e s t i n the students' p e r s o n a l b e l i e f s and opinions on a v a r i e t y of questions. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was to be completely anonymous and c o n f i d e n t i a l , and the students' complete honesty based on t h e i r p e r s o n a l outlooks was requested. I t was mentioned that t h i s had nothing to do w i t h c l a s s grades. On the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , the students were t o l d not to rush through the q u e s t i o n s , but i f any proved too d i f f i c u l t to go on to the next question. They were t o l d not to spend too much time on any one question and to hand i n t h e i r paper and leave when they were f i n i s h e d . Most i m p o r t a n t l y , they were requested not to speak amongst themselves about these q u e s t i o n n a i r e s u n t i l a f t e r the three t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s were completed. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were then handed out and the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n proceeded f o r twenty minutes. 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093797/manifest

Comment

Related Items