UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relation of cognitive style to the achievement of selected goals of an intermediate open area program Macdonald, Russell G. 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_1977_A8 M32_3.pdf [ 8.38MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094145.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094145-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094145-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094145-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094145-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094145-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094145-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094145-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094145.ris

Full Text

THE RELATION OF COGNITIVE STYLE TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF SELECTED GOALS OF AN INTERMEDIATE LEVEL OPEN AREA PROGRAM ' by RUSSELL G. MAGDONALD B.Ao Sc., University of Toronto (1966) A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MASTER OF ARTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION December, 1976 iRussell G. MacDonald, 1977 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f< an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I a g ree tha 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 pu rpo se s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f E D u e * T I O N The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the cognitive style of learners and their achievement of specific program goals; 1. Independent patterns of work . 2. Acceptance of social responsibility. 3. Positive attitude toward schooling. 4. Positive attitude toward self. 5» Basic skills i n reading, writing and listening. The study was conducted in a small open-area classroom in West Vancouver with fifty-seven learners and two teachers. The program placed emphasis on structuring of time and learning experience by the learners. The Sequential Tests of Educational Progress were used to measure achievement of basic skills. Achievement of the other goals was measured using instruments developed specifically for this study. Learners were characterized by cognitive style using the Hidden Figures Test. Discriminant analysis was used to differentiate between cognitive style groups on the basis of dependent variable score pro-f i l e s . No differentiation was found as the sample was concentrated i n the field independent region of the cognitive style continuum. Hierarchical grouping analysis was carried out to determine i f there were any patterns of grouping based on achievement. Groups found were related to only two of the independent variables: sex and i i socioeconomic status. Q-analysis was done as a more intensive study of the two dependent variables of major importance: independent patterns of work and social responsibility. There was no relationship found between the Q-analysis groups and the independent variables. Certain large groups described themselves as using and preferring non-independent patterns of work. Other large groups described them-selves as using and admiring highly socially irresponsible behaviour. Very small groups used or admired socially responsible behaviour, A paired-comparison scaling technique was used to determine preferences for methods of communication. A l l cognitive style groups preferred talking over a l l other methods of communication. The most analytic group of children had a greater preference for, "Body English", i n communication than the least analytic group. Implications for further research are discussed, with p a r t i -cular reference to the findings of social-behavior patterns. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables L i s t of Figures Acknowledgements Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1.00 Purpose of the Study 1.10 Statement of the General Problem 1.20 Statement of the Specific Problems 1,30 Description of the Concept Cognitive Style 1.40 General Research Hypothesis 1,50 Specific Research Hypotheses 1.60 Limitations of the Study 1.61 Cognitive Style 1.62 Achievement of Learners 1.63 Scope of the Study 1.64 General!zability of Findings II. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 2.00 General Background 2.10 Relevance of Cognitive Style to Education 2.20 Relation of Cognitive Style to the Selected Goals of the Program 2.21 Communicate Effectively 2.22 Independent Patterns of Work i v Chapter Page 2.23 Social Responsibility 21 2.24 Positive Self Image 22 2.25 Attitude Toward Schooling 23 III. METHOD OF STUDY 3.00 Description of the Population 25 3.10 Variables to be Studied 26 3.20 Procedures for Collection of Data 2? 3.21 Communication S k i l l s 28 3.22 Patterns of Work 32 3.23 Social Responsibility 35 3.24 Scoring of Q-Sorts 37 3.25 Scoring of Teacher Questionnaire 38 3.26 Attitude Toward Self 38 3.27 Attitude Toward Schooling 40 3.28 Scoring of Semantic Differentials 40 3.29 Cognitive Style 43 3.30 Scoring of Children's Embedded Figures Test and Hidden Figures Test 47 3.31 Other Independent Variables 48 3.32 Description of the Classroom Situation 48 IV. DATA ANALYSIS 49 4.00 Methods of Data Analysis 49 4.01 Discriminant Analysis 49 4.02 Hierarchical Grouping Analysis 5° v Chapter Page 4.03 Q-Sort Analysis 51 4.04 Paired Comparison Scaling 53 4.10 Results of Data Analyses 5^  4.11 Results of Discriminent Analysis 5^  4.12 Results of Hierarchical Grouping 54 Analysis 4.13 Results of Q-Sort Analysis 57 4.131 Independent Patterns of Work 57 4.132 Acceptance of Social Responsibility 60 4.133 Relationship of Independent Variables to Q-Sort Groups 63 4.14 Results of Paired-Comparison Scaling 63 4.15 Summary of Results with Reference to the Hypothesis 64 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65 5.10 Conclusions 65 5.11 Differentiation Between Cognitive Style Groups 65 5.12 Grouping by Sex and Socioeconomic Status 65 5.13 Patterns of Work 66 5.14 Social Responsibility 67 5.20 Recommendations for Further Research 68 REFERENCES APPENDICES I. Dimensions of Schooling Scores 75 II. Q-Sort Statements for Each Group from Q-Analysis 77 III. Q-Sort Groups and Independent Variables 85 vi APPENDICES P a S e IV. Cognitive Style Groups and Independent Variables 92 V. Scale Values of Pictures i n Paired Comparison, 95 by Cognitive Style Group VI. Semantic Differential: Attitude Toward Schooling 96 VII. Semantic Differential: Attitude Toward Self 102 VIII. Teacher Questionnaire 107 IX. (a) Dimensions of Schooling (b) Scoring System for Dimensions of Schooling 153 X. (a) Sample Statements from Q-Sorts-1 and 2 157 (b) Sample Statements from Q-Sorts-3 and 4 159 XI. (a) Drawings Used for Paired Comparison of Pictures l 6 l (b) Ross' Method of Pairing 167 v i i Table LIST OF TABLES Page I. Description of Population i n Terms of Age and Sex by Grade. 25 II. Age Range of Population by Grade. 26 III, Distribution of Children by Socioeconomic Category. 27. IV. Variables To Be Studied 27 V. Techniques for Data Collection 28 VI. Conditions for Choice: Paired-Comparison of Pictures 30 VII. Examples of Statements from Q-Sorts 1 and 2: Patterns of Work 34 VIII. Examples of Statements from Q-Sorts 3 and 4: Acceptance of Social Responsibility 36 IX. Grouping of Adjective Pairs for Scoring Semantic Differentials 42 X. Results of Hierarchical Grouping Analysis $6 XI. Statements Describing Actual and Preferred Behavior: Independent Patterns of Work 58 XII. Statements Describing Actual and Admired Behavior: Acceptance of Social Responsibility 61 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Rod and Frame Apparatus 5 2 Scheme of the' Conceptualization of Cognitive Experience 9 3 Form of the Summary of Scores from S.T.E.P. 29 4 Form of the Summary of Scores from the Paired Comparison of Pictures 31 5 Q-Sort-1 Distribution 32 6 Q-Sort-2 Distribution 33 7 Q-Sort-3 Distribution 35 8 Q-Sort-4 Distribution 35 9 Form of the Summary of Data from the Q-Sorts 37 10 Form of the Summary of Teacher Questionnaire Data 38 11 Scale Used i n Semantic Differential: Attitude Toward Self 39 12 Scale Used i n Semantic Differential: Attitude Toward Schooling 40 13 Scoring of the Concept: The Teacher's Role i n the Classroom 41 14 Form of the Summary of Data from the Semantic Differentials 44 i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge the generous assistance provided by Professors Fred Gomall and Walter Boldt t and other members of the thesis committee, whose s k i l l s and standards were invaluable i n the execution of this study. x CHAPTER I THE INTRODUCTION 1.00 Purpose of the Study Some studies, (Witkin, Grimes, Sieben), have suggested that the cognitive style^" of the learner i s an Important variable influencing the effectiveness of school programs which emphasize indirect teacher control of learning. The purpose of this study was to determine i f significant differences i n achievement, among learners with different cognitive styles, existed under conditions of a particular elementary 2 school intermediate open-area program. Should significant differences exist, cognitive style may well be a useful basis on which to group children i n order to improve learning and instruction. 1.10 Statement of the General Problem The general problem of this study was to determine i f there was a significant correlation between the cognitive style of the learners and their present achievement of selected goals of their program. I f this correlation existed, this study would also determine i f other common variables, such as age, sex, grade and socioeconomic status, could be used equally well as c r i t e r i a for grouping. H. A. Witkin, et a l . , Psychological Differentiation (J. Wiley and Sons, N. Y., 1962). Irwin Park Alternate Intermediate Program, West Vancouver The goals measured i n this study were selected from the goals of the Alternate Intermediate Program at Irwin Park Elementary School, West Vancouver. The basis for selection was: 1. The goals were those defined by the teachers of the Alternate Intermediate Program. 2. The goals could be appropriate for any program which em-phasizes learner self-direction. 3. Achievement of the goals was l i k e l y to be related to the cognitive style of the learner. The goals selected for measurement were: 1. The learner w i l l demonstrate growth i n his a b i l i t y to communicate effectively. both verbally and non-verbally. 2. The learner w i l l demonstrate an increase i n his use of independent patterns of work. 3. The learner w i l l demonstrate growth i n his acceptance of  social responsibility. 4. The learner w i l l demonstrate growth i n his sense of self worth and development of a positive self image. 5. The learner w i l l demonstrate growth of a positive attitude  toward his schooling. Schooling i s described along the following dimensions: (a) The teacher's role i n the classroom (b) The program of learning (c) The social structure of the classroom Cognitive style, as a potentially useful basis for grouping - 3 -learners for instruction* Is described In some detail i n sections l , 6 l and 2.10. Past research (Witkin, 1969? Grieve and Davis, 1971; Satterly and Buner, 1971J Witkin, 1973$ Robinson and Gray, 197^ ? Thornell, 1976) suggests that learners with different cognitive styles should experience different learning situations. With the emphasis placed on self-direction i n the present Irwin Park program, significant differences i n achieve-ment among learners were expected for different cognitive style groups. 1«20 Statement of the Specific Problems The general problem stated i n the previous section was resolved into the following specific questions: 1» Can the cognitive styles of the learners be correlated s i g -nificantly with their present achievement i n communication s k i l l s , i n -dependent patterns of work, and acceptance of social responsibility, and their present status i n attitudes toward self and schooling? 2. Along what psychological dimensions can the various cognitive styles be differentiated? 3. Is there a significant correlation between cognitive style and age, sex, grade or socioeconomic status? 4. Are there any suggested patterns of grouping among the learners based on the dependent variable score profiles? 5« Is there a consistent pattern, within the groups of question four, for each of the variables: cognitive style, age, sex, grade or socioeconomic status? - LL _ 1,30 Description of the Concept; Cognitive Style The concept of cognitive style has "been introduced "by H. A. Wltkin and his associates. Wltkin defines cognitive styles as, "... the characteristic self consistent modes of functioning which 3 individuals show i n their perceptual and intellectual a c t i v i t i e s . " ^ Witkin also notes, "These cognitive styles are manifestations i n the cognitive sphere of s t i l l broader dimensions of personal functioning k which cut across diverse psychological areas," The lowest order construct used i n describing the concept, cognitive style, i s f i e l d dependence - f i e l d independence. WitJdn In a f i e l d dependent mode of perceiving, perception i s strongly dominated by the overall organization of the surrounding f i e l d , and parts of the f i e l d are experienced as, 'fused'. In a f i e l d independent mode of perceiving, parts of the f i e l d are experienced as discrete from the or-To c l a r i f y understanding of this construct i t i s useful to consider tests used by Witkin and his associates to characterize people on a f i e l d ^H. A, Witkin, et a l , , Manual for Embedded Figures Test, Children's  Embedded Figures Test, and Group Embedded Figures Test (Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, California, 1971) p.3 states: Ibid. 'ibid, p.4 - 5 -dependent - f i e l d independent continuum. The Rod and Frame Test (R.F.T.) consists of a square luminous frame, the f i e l d , i n which i s centered a luminous rod. Both the rod and frame are coaxial. This apparatus i s represented schematically i n Figure - 1. FIGURE - 1 Rod and Frame Apparatus w w 0 The subject i s seated i n a darkened room; the rod and frame are t i l t e d . The subject i s then asked to adjust the position of the rod so that i t i s aligned with the true v e r t i c a l . A strongly f i e l d dependent person i s influenced by the frame and tends to align the rod with the frame. A strongly f i e l d independent person tends to ignore the frame and align the rod with the true ve r t i c a l . Witkin states, "The person who performs i n a relatively f i e l d dependent fashion follows the organization of the f i e l d as presented, whereas the relatively f i e l d independent person i s able to overcome the organization of the f i e l d to break i t up i n order to locate the sought after component." Ibid. p.7 - 6 -Other tests used are the Embedded Figures Test (E.F.T.) and the Body Adjustment Test (B.A.T.). In the E.F.T. the subject must disembed a simple figure from a complex distracting background (the f i e l d ) . The B.A.T. requires the subject to align his body with the true vertical while seated In a t i l t e d room. These tests give results consistent with the Rod and Frame Test. Witkin notes, "... the person who takes very long to discover the simple figure i n the complex Embedded Figures design i s also l i k e l y to t i l t the rod towards the 7 t i l t e d frame and his own body toward the t i l t e d room."' Witkin further states s Further evidence for a consistent tendency among Individuals to perceive i n a field-dependent or f i e l d -independent fashion i s found i n numerous studies yielding significant correlations between scores on the E.F.T. and/or R.F.T. and B.A.T. and scores from a host of other situations which may be conceived to involve perceptual disembedding, including such classical ones as the con-stancies, certain i l l u s i o n s , and reversible perspective (Gardner, 1 9 5 7 1 1 9 6 1 ; Jackson, 1955» 1 9 5 8 ; Newbigging, 1 9 5 4 ; Perez, 1955). 8 The construct f i e l d dependence - f i e l d independence has a very specific perceptual connotation, and therefore i s too limited a label for the broader concept of cognitive style. Studies by Karp and Goodenough ( I 9 6 l ) , and Karp ( 1 9 6 3 ) have disclosed a high correlation between Embedded Figures Test performance and performance on the Ibid, p.4 'ibid. p.5 - 7 -analytic factor 7 of standard intelligence tests. The results of these studies suggest perceptual f i e l d dependence - f i e l d independence i s a part of a broader psychological dimension representing, "... at i t s extremes, contrasting ways of approaching a f i e l d , whether the f i e l d i s immediately present or represented symbolically".^ This broader psychological dimension i s described by Witkin using the terms, "Global" and, "Analytic", to name opposite ends of the cognitive style continuum. Another study by Witkin et a l (1962) has disclosed a relation between Embedded Figures Test performance and the tendency to impose structure on Rorschach Ink Blot Tests, This i s significant i n that the a b i l i t y to impose structure i s also linked to the a b i l i t y to analyze experience: The finding of a linkage between analytical and structuring a b i l i t i e s suggested that the cognitive style involved was even broader than implied by the, "global-analytical" concept. This broader cognitive style may be described as followsj At one extreme, when the f i e l d i s structured, there i s a tendency for i t s organization, as given to dictate the manner i n which both the f i e l d as a whole and i t s parts are experienced; when the f i e l d lacks structure, ex-perience tends to be global and diffuse. At the other ^Previous factor analytic studies by Cohen (1957, 1959) have identified three main factor components i n both the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, They are: 1, A verbal-comprehension factor represented by vocabulary, i n -formation, and comprehension subtests. 2, An attention-concentration factor represented by digit span, arithmetic and d i g i t symbol subtests, 3, An analytic factor represented by block design, object assembly and picture completion subtests. Witkin, op, c i t . , p.7 - 8 -extreme there i s a tendency for experience to be delineated and structured, even when the material lacks inherent organization; parts of a f i e l d are experienced as discrete and the f i e l d as a whole as organized. To those opposite poles of the cognitive style, we apply the labels, "global" and " a r t i c u l a t e d . " 1 1 More recent studies (Corah (I965)i Karp, Silberman, and Winters (1969), Winestine (1969); Witkin, et a l (1962) have identified a relation between perceptual and intellectual functioning, and body concept. Other studies (Crutchfield, Woodsworth, and Albrecht, 1958; Konstadt and Forman, 1965; Messick and Damarin, 1964) have related cognitive style to a sense of separate Identity. Studies by Bertini (I960) and Witkin et a l (1962) have linked cognitive style to the nature of defenses used. These diverse characteristics are considered by Witkin as manifestations of less developed or more developed psychological differentiation. Witkin sees psychological differentiation as the highest order construct. The conceptualization proposed by Witkin suggests there i s consistency i n experience (more global or more articulated) across a l l individual characteristics discussed. I t can be expected these characteristics w i l l include response to a particular learning environ-ment as well. The scheme of this conceptualization i s presented i n Figure 2. -Ibid. - 9 -FIGURE 2 Scheme of the Conceptualization of Cognitive  Experience"^ Psychological Differentiation Articulated Perceptual and Intellectual Functioning Analysis _ l _ Articulated Body Concept Sense of Separate Identity Structured, Specialized Defenses Structuring I In perception In Intellectual In perception In Intellectual (field independence Functioning Functioning as reflected on E.F.T. performance) Cross cultural studies "by Wltkin (1969)^ have demonstrated that the global-articulated cognitive styles are a fundamental human character!sti c. 1.40 General Research Hypothesis It i s hypothesized that analytic learners will better adapt to and function in the conditions of an open area setting in which self-direction i s emphasized, than global learners. These conditions will result in significantly higher achievement scores by the analytic learners than by the global learners. Analytic learners were defined by low scores on the Hidden Figures -^Ibid., p.14 A. Witkin, A Cognitive Style Approach to Cross Cultural Research, International Journal of Psychology, 1967, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 245 - 10 -Test;"1""* global learners were defined by high scores on this test. - 1"^ 1.50 Specific Research Hypothesis Under the existing conditions of the Irwin Park Alternate Inter mediate Program i t i s hypothesized that: 1. Analytic learners w i l l attain a significantly higher level of achievement of the selected program goals than global learners. 2. There w i l l not be a significant correlation between cognitive style and the other independent variables: age, sex, grade, or socioeconomic status. 1^ 1,60 Limitations of the Study 1.61 Cognitive Style It was f i r s t assumed that the concept of cognitive style as developed by Witkin and others over the past 25 years i s a valid indication of psychological differentiation and i s related to learning style. Second, i t was assumed that the scores obtained by the children on the Children's Embedded Figures Test were valid measures of their 0. K. Buros, The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook,,(Gryphon Press, New Jersey, 1972) p. 440. 15 -'Low scorers on this test are said to be f i e l d independent, high scorers are f i e l d dependent. For a description of the scoring procedure, refer to section 3«36. "^There i s a tendency for change toward the f i e l d independent end of the cognitive style continuum as natural maturation occurs. I t was expected, within the age range of the sample, that there would be more low scorers on the Hidden Figures Test among the older (grade 7) learners, than among the younger (grade 4) learners. - 11 -cognitive style. With reference to the f i r s t assumption there i s considerable empirical evidence to suggest the concept i s valid. Witkin states, "The level of differentiation achieved i n the development of a psychological system i s an influential across the board determiner 17 of many segments of behavior." Learning style, so closely related to perceptual and intellectual functions i s l i k e l y one of these segments of behavior determined by the level of differentiation achieved. In addition, Witkin states, "The assumption that any seg-ment of behavior may i n f a i r degree serve to identify personal s t y l i s t i c tendencies seems tenable - and has i n fact received con-siderable empirical support - even though there i s the inevitable qualification that "unevenness i n development" i n individual cases 18 may diminish consistency across areas." The Children's Embedded Figures T e s t 1 9 (C.E.F.T.) was f i r s t administered to characterize the learners according to their cognitive styles. The internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients of this test range from 0,7 to 0,86 over the ages nine to twelve years. The test i s intended to be administered individually. However, limitations of time and resources prohibited this. A group administration technique based on the test manual instructions and the ideas of Sieben (1971) "'"''Witkin, op. c i t . , Embedded Figures Test Manual, p. 3 1 8 I b i d . , p. 14 1 9H. A. Witkin et a l . , Children's Embedded Figures Test. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California, 1971. - 12 -was used. The purpose of testing was to determine a relative cognitive style for each learner. Learners could then be grouped into three cognitive style groups, ranging from f i e l d dependent to f i e l d independent. Sieben (1971) achieved reliable results using a similar technique. Almost a l l the learners aged nine to twelve years, scored above the mean score reported i n the test manual for ages eleven to twelve years. For their ages, the learners are concentrated at the f i e l d independent end of the cognitive style continuum. To achieve a more useful description of the cognitive styles of 20 the learners, the Hidden Figures Test used by Grimes (1973) and i n part by Sieben (1971) was administered. Both the number of correct items and total time required were included i n the calculation of the score of each learner. The scores obtained were then used to characterize the learners on the cognitive style continuum. This characterization, however, differentiates between children who vary only i n the extent to which they are analytic. This condition limits the a b i l i t y of the study to demonstrate the research hypotheses. 1.62 Achievement of Learners Achievement was described by the score each learner obtained on the test instrument. The test instruments were designed to record be-havior indicative of the achievement of the selected goals of the program• Buros, op. c i t . - 1 3 -The Sequential Tests of Educational Progress (S.T.E.P.)C1~ were used to measure achievement of writing, reading, and listening skills. Other instruments used to measure achievement were developed specifically for the study. It was assumed these instruments would produce reliable and valid data. This assumption was based on the statements of authorities in the field of testing and measurement whose writings were followed in the design of the instruments. 1.63 Scope of the Study This study was limited to those learners taking part in the Alternate Intermediate Program at Irwin Park Elementary School during the winter and spring terms of 1 9 7 4 . The achievement level of the learners in the selected goals of that program was limited to the months of April and May, 1 9 7 4 , when testing was conducted. 1.64 General! zabi11ty of Findings There are limitations to the general!zability of the findings. The children making up the sample were selected from volunteers to the Alternate Intermediate Program from the entire West Vancouver School District. This alternate program was organized in response to parental pressure and many parents who pressured, enrolled their children in i t . The selection was not random and the sample may have Sequential Tests of Educational Progress. Cooperative Tests and Services, Educational Testing Services, Princeton, New Jersey, 1969. - 1 4 -had special character!sties i n view of the selection-by-application 22 feature. The only condition limiting admission to the program was to ensure that,"Not more than the usual proportion of the students 23 were children with hard-core learning d i f f i c u l t i e s . " y In order that the applicability of the findings to other com-parable situations may be better assessed, the learners are described i n section 3.00. The program i s described i n Appendices I and IX. I t has already been noted that the learners were concentrated at the f i e l d independent end of the cognitive style continuum. -'Statement by R. Fenwick, Director of Instruction, West Vancouver School District, CHAPTER II BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 2.00 General Background There has "been a trend, i n recent years, for educators to determine, provide for and nurture individual differences among learners. This trend i s based on the assumption that the individual within society has value and status, and that school, as a societal institution, should prepare learners to participate i n a society that believes this assumption to be true. It i s also based on the- recognition that each person i s a unique individual who, i n the past has been made to conform to an educational process designed for a hypothetical "average" person. Educational strategies, such as individualizated instruction, personalized learning, and independent study, which are designed to accommodate individual differences, depend on an efficient and accurate diagnosis of individual learner characteristics. The learner's needs, a b i l i t i e s , limitations, learning style, and interests are among the important characteristics which must be ascertained and where possible measured. The determination of the cognitive style of the learner i s one method of characterizing an individual, especially i n describing the way he i s likely to perform i n a learning situation. Should cognitive style be significantly related to achievement i n a particular learning environment, i t should enhance the use of this variable as a diagnostic tool. Some useful applications may be: - 15 -- 16 -(a) Placement of learners into a program. (b) Diagnosis of individual learner needs. (c) Design and prescription of the individual learning experience. (d) Evaluation of learner achievement. It was the purpose of this study to determine the effect of a particular learning environment emphasizing self direction, on achieve-ment of learners with differing cognitive styles. 2.10 Relevance of Cognitive Style to Education Witkin has commented: Cognitive style encompasses the perceptual as well as the Intellectual functioning of the child and i n this regard covers cognitive a b i l i t y more comprehensively than our usual Intelligence tests ... Moreover, ... a given cognitive style appears to be the manifestation, i n the cognitive sphere, of a broader dimension that extends into the domain of personal functioning - or personality -and so carries a message about the child as a person... In this connection, ... perceptual performance may be taken as a 'tracer element* identifying a larger psychological dimension of which such performance i s a part.2^ Using this, "tracer element," the tendency of a person to function at a more differentiated or less differentiated level can be deter-mined. Witkin (1969) has suggested cognitive style determination H. A. Witkin, Some Implications of Research on Cognitive Style for Problems i n Education. Professional School Psychology, Vol. I l l , 1969, pp. 198 - 227. P. 218. - 17 -has application to evaluation,*^ placement, and methods of teaching i n education. Witkin forsees the development of a cognitive map, consisting of an individual's various cognitive styles, which w i l l permit emphasis on the uniqueness of the individual and avoid the usual labelling along a simple "better-worse" continuum. Cognitive style has relevence for grouping learners i n terms of a b i l i t i e s and needs and i n placing learners with teachers i n terms of matching compatible teaching and learning styles. The results of studies by Witkin, Lewis, and Weil (1968) and by Pollach and Kiev (1963) which investigated the interaction between patients and therapists with reference to cognitive style, suggested that matching learners to teachers on the basis of similar cognitive style could produce a better teacher - learner relationship. Di Stefano (1969) found teachers and students matched i n cognitive style showed positive mutual evaluation; teachers and students who were mismatched i n cognitive style tended to evaluate each other negatively. The issue of "Method of teaching" i s one which has particular significance for this study as i t essentially defines the overall ^Although Witkin uses the term "evaluation" i n his paper, the process to which he refers i s better termed "diagnosis" i . e . The characterization of children i n terms of needs, interests and a b i l i t i e s . Witkin states i n the section t i t l e d "Evaluation", "Children may be effectively characterized i n terms of cognitive style; and such characterizations are particularly appropriate to the kind of 'sizing up* of children needed i n the educational situation."26 - 18 -a p p r o a c h t o p r o v i d i n g t h e l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r l e a r n e r . Wu (1967) f o u n d t h a t t h e c o g n i t i v e s t y l e o f t h e t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e s h i s p r e f e r r e d method o f t e a c h i n g . Those t e a c h e r s c l a s s i f i e d as r e l a t i v e l y f i e l d d ependent p r e f e r r e d methods i n v o l v i n g more t e a c h e r / p u p i l c o n t a c t w h i l e f i e l d ' i n d e p e n d e n t t e a c h e r p r e f e r r e d methods s u c h as l e c t u r e o r d i s c o v e r y t e c h n i q u e s i n v o l v i n g l e s s i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n . G r i e v e and D a v i s (1971) have r e p o r t e d t h a t e x t r e m e l y f i e l d dependent s t u d e n t s e x p e r i e n c e d c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y w i t h a n e x p o s i t o r y method o f t e a c h i n g . T h i s f i n d i n g s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s e s t u d e n t s r e q u i r e more t i m e and i n t e r -p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t t o m a s t e r t h e t y p e s o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s and c o n c e p t s u s e d i n t h e i r s t u d y . Gray and K n i e f (1975) o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o g n i t i v e s t y l e and a c h i e v e m e n t r e v e r s e d f r o m one c l a s s t o a n o t h e r , t h u s s u g g e s t i n g c l a s s r o o m e n v i r o n m e n t i s an i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e t o c o n s i d e r . O t h e r s t u d i e s have r e l a t e d c o g n i t i v e s t y l e t o a c h i e v e m e n t i n p a r -t i c u l a r s u b j e c t a r e a s . Kagan (1965) f o u n d f e w e r r e a d i n g p r o b l e m s a t t h e p r i m a r y l e v e l i n a n a l y t i c b o y s t h a n i n n o n - a n a l y t i c b o y s . The f i n d i n g s o f F r e d e r i c k (1969) r e v e a l e d t h a t a n a l y t i c s t u d e n t s r e a c h e d a h i g h e r l e v e l o f a c h i e v e m e n t i n E n g l i s h , S o c i a l S t u d i e s and M a t h e m a t i c s . S c o t t (1973) h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t l o g i c and r e s e a r c h b o t h i n d i c a t e a n a l y t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d l e a r n e r s a r e more e f f i c i e n t t h a n n o n - a n a l y t i c l e a r n e r s i n m a t h e m a t i c s and the s c i e n c e s where a n a l y s i s and r e f l e c t i o n a r e v a l u a b l e a s s e t s . S i e b e n (1971) and Grimes (1973) have r e l a t e d a c h i e v e m e n t i n s c i e n c e p r o c e s s s k i l l s a t t h e e l e m e n t a r y and j u n i o r s e c o n d a r y l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , t o l e a r n e r s o g n i t i v e s t y l e . S l a t t e r y (1976) f o u n d t h a t , w h i l e e x c e p t i o n a l f i e l d i n d e p e n d e n c e was n o t an a d v a n t a g e i n l e a r n i n g m a t h e m a t i c s , h i g h f i e l d dependence - 19 -was a distinct disadvantage. Other studies (Witkin, 1962; Ohmacht, 1966; Davis and Kausmeirer, 1970; Grieve and Davis, 1971; Thornell, 1974) reveal analytic learners perform significantly better than global learners on concept identification tasks, concept attainment tests, and long range - r e c a l l tasks, respectively. Creativity and productivity i n the arts and humanities were found to be hampered i n an analytic person and more easily achieved by non-analytic learners i n a study by Lee, Kagan and Robson (1963)* In this study concepts which did not require analysis were acquired much more easily by non-analytic learners than by analytic learners, Robinson and Gray (1974) have concluded that the relationship between learner cognitive style and particular school learning variables should be considered prior to prescribing instruction methods, Thornell states: As we learn more about cognitive processes and modes of problem solving, we realize anew the need to design instructional programs that accommodate the unique a b i l i t i e s of the individual student.27 To conclude, consider Witkin*s statements Our evidence suggests that a tendency toward a more articulated or global style colours the child's experience pervasively from moment to moment. Is i t not reasonable to expect that knowing a child's particular cognitive styles may help us determine the best way of reaching him?2° 'John G. Thornell, Research on Cognitive Styles: Implications for  Teaching and Learning^ Educational Leadership, 33, April 1976, p. 502. Witkin, op. c i t . , p. 223 - 20 -2.20 R e l a t i o n o f Cogni t ive S t y l e to the Selec ted Goals o f the Program I n t h i s s e c t i o n a l o g i c a l connection i s made, w i t h i n the context o f the hypothes is , between the concept o f c o g n i t i v e s t y l e and the goals o f the program t h a t were s e l e c t e d f o r measurement. 2.21 Communicate E f f e c t i v e l y T h i s g o a l was viewed as a two-way process i n v o l v i n g both t r a n s -m i t t i n g and r e c e i v i n g thoughts a c c u r a t e l y . I t i n c l u d e d both v e r b a l and non-verbal modes o f communication. I t i s important to note that o f the three i d e n t i f i e d f a c t o r s making up the W.A . I .S. and W . I . S . C . i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s , o n l y performance on the a n a l y t i c f a c t o r c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y wi th performance on the Embedded F i g u r e s T e s t , I t might be expected, from t h i s r e s u l t , tha t c o g n i t i v e s t y l e would not c o r r e l a t e wi th achievement o f t h i s g o a l . The general research hypothesis o f the study, however, s t a t e d that the environmental c o n d i t i o n s o f the classroom would not be condusive t o success by g l o b a l l e a r n e r s i n the goals o f the program. S t u d i e s by Jennings (1967), Doob (1958) and Marcus (1970) i n d i c a t e persons o f s i m i l a r c o g n i t i v e s t y l e s use s i m i l a r modes of communication such as s e l f references i n speech, use o f the personal pronoun, use o f a c t i v e verbs and r a t e o f speech. I n p a r t i c u l a r , Freedman, O'Hanlon, Oltman and W i t k i n (1972) found that hand gestures accompanying speech d i f f e r e d between c o g n i t i v e s t y l e t y p e s , W i t k i n (1969) has a l s o p o i n t e d out that body concept i s r e l a t e d - 21 -to cognitive style. Body concept refers to the impression, definitive or vague, which a person has of what his "body i s lik e and how i t i s put together, Witkin (1969) has found that analytic children ex-perience the parts of their bodies as discrete and the boundaries as having definite l i m i t s . This i s revealed by the wealth of detail found i n drawings of people by analytic children, compared to the very sketchy drawings of minimal detail done by global children. Since non-verbal communication Involves the use of parts of the body, (e.g.: Body - English), there can log i c a l l y be a difference between global and analytic children i n their use of non-verbal communication. It can be expected that analytic children w i l l demonstrate a greater preference for the non-verbal "Body - English" mode of communication than global children. 2.22 Independent Patterns of Work Achievement of independent patterns of work implies that the learner i s self-selecting, self-directing, self-motivating and se l f -evaluating i n his educational experience. It requires the learner to analyze and structure his own learning; to function i n the articulated mode of cognitive experience. It was expected that analytic learners would reach a higher level of achievement of this goal than global learners. 2.23 Social Responsibility Witkin states: Because cognitive style speaks on personal - 22 -characteristics we may expect children with different cognitive styles to d i f f e r i n their re-lation to their fellow students and teachers. As an example we may anticipate, from our findings, that children, who are f i e l d independent and show an articulated cognitive style, w i l l be less conforming and more self directed i n their classroom behavior. I t i s not immediately apparent from this anticipation by Witkin whether analytic learners or global learners are more l i k e l y to exhibit social responsibility. I t may be argued that children who are less conforming are less l i k e l y to accept social responsibility within the classroom. Alternately i t may be argued that children who are better adapted to their particular classroom environment and who are more self directed, are more l i k e l y to take the i n i t i a t i v e to structure their social environment which, within this setting, social res-ponsibility demands. Having structured the environment analytic learners can be expected to demonstrate greater social responsibility, within that structure, 2.24 Positive Self Image In a study by Rudin and Stagner (1958) the subjects were asked to think of themselves i n each of four social situations and, using an adjective checklist, describe themselves i n each situation. The issue wast To what extent would the change i n social context influence the subject's view of himself. It was found that strongly global people fluctuated significantly more i n their view of themselves, with change i n social context, than analytic people. The social context, then, - 23 -strongly influenced the self image of global people. Learners who were not well adapted to function i n their classroom environment were not expected to have as high a positive self image as better adapted learners. This suggests analytic learners would have a higher positive self image. 2.25 Attitude Toward Schooling This goal was measured along three dimensions described i n section 1.10, and repeated here for convenience. (a) The teacher's role i n the classroom (b) The program of learning. (c) The social structure of the classroom. The teacher's role i n the classroom was supportive to the learner. The children were counselled on a one-to-one basis by the teacher. The overall objective was to assist the learner to become more independent. The teachers defined independence as, "The a b i l i t y to pursue learning a c t i v i t i e s on one's own." This required the teacher to assume a non-structuring, non-directing role whenever possible. The structuring - directing function i n this situation, had to be assumed by the learner. Analytic learners were expected to have a more positive attitude toward this role of the teacher than global learners. The program was highly individualized. The learning experience was largely individualized by the learners themselves. This opportunity to design, structure and control their own learning was more l i k e l y to result i n a positive attitude toward the program by analytic learners than by global learners. - 24 -The social structure of the classroom was democratic i n the sense that the children were given the power to structure the class-room society by voting on their own proposals. Analytic children were expected to participate more i n this structuring than global children, and thus have a more positive attitude toward the social structure they had helped to create. CHAPTER III METHOD OF STUDY 3.00 Description of the Population A l l the children enrolled i n the Alternate Intermediate Program at Irwin Park at the time of the study were included i n the population.^ There was a total of fifty-seven children and two teachers. Twenty-eight children i n grades four and five were the concern of one teacher. The other twenty-nine children i n grades six and seven were the concern of the second teacher. Table I describes the population i n terms of age and sex by grade. Table II describes the age ranges at each grade level as of May 1, 1974. Note that overall sex distribution i s approximately equal, but that there i s a higher proportion of g i r l s i n the lower grades. TABLE I DESCRIPTION OF POPULATION IN TERMS OF AGE AND SEX BY GRADE Grade Number of Children at Each Age Sex Total 10 11 12 13 14 M F 4 9 2 4 7 11 5 3 14 7 10 17 6 1 12 1 8 6 14 7 2 12 1 8 7 15 Total 27 30 57 See section I.63, p.13 for a description of the admission procedure. - 25 -- 26 -TABLE II AGE RANGE OF POPULATION BY GRADE Grade < Age Range: Years-month Total: Years-month 9 - 8 11 - 0 1 - 4 5 10 - 5 11 - 4 0 - 11 6 11 - 0 12 - 8 1 - 8 7 11 - 9 13 - 7 1 - 10 The age ranges are usual for these grades, with the widest range i n grade seven. Table III shows the number of children i n each socioeconomic 30 category^ by grade and across grade. It should be noted this population i s from a very high socioeconomic group (83$ of the population i n class 1 or 2). 3.10 Variables to Be Studied Table IV presents the variables to be studied. In addition to those variables shown i n the table the classroom situation w i l l be described using the instrument, "Dimensions of Schooling." This instrument was used independently by each of the two teachers and the principal. The description i s tabled i n Appendix I. The instrument and scoring system are included i n Appendix IX. 3°See section 3.31 for a description of the scoring procedure for socioeconomic groups. - 2 7 -TABLE III DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN BY SOCIOECONOMIC CATEGORY Socioeconomic Category # Children i n Each Total Category Score Category by Grade Range 4 5 6 7 Class 1 7 3 . 2 - 9 0 . 0 2 5 4 4 1 5 Class 2 5 7 . 0 - 72 .9 8 1 0 7 8 3 3 Class 3 5 2 . 0 - 5 6 . 9 l 2 1 4 Class 4 5 0 . 5 - 5 1 . 9 Class 5 4 5 . 1 - 5 0 . 4 1 1 2 Class 6 41 .8 - 4 5 . 0 1 1 Unemployed"^ '.' ••32 l 1 2 TABLE IV VARIABLES TO BE STUDIED Dependent Variables Independent Variables 1 . Communication S k i l l s 1 . Age 2 . Patterns of Work 2 . Sex 3 . Social Responsibility 3 . Grade 4 . Self Image 4 . Cognitive Style 5 . Attitudes Toward School 5 . Socioeconomic Status 3 . 2 0 Procedures for Collection of Data Efforts were made to convince the learners that their honest - 28 -answers were important to the researcher (already known to them) and would i n no way be used as part of their school record. The instruments or sources for obtaining data on the variables l i s t e d i n the preceding table are given below i n Table V. The methods for obtaining data on the variables described, are discussed i n detail i n the sections which follow. TABLE V TECHNIQUES FOR DATA COLLECTION Variable Technique Independent Variables 1. Age 2. Sex 3. Socioeconomic Status 4. Grade 5. Cognitive Style Classroom records Classroom records School records Classroom records Children's Embedded Figures Test, Hidden Figures Test Dependent Variables 1. Communication S k i l l s 2. Patterns of Work 3. Social Responsibility 4. Self Image 5. Attitude Toward School (a) Verbal: S.T.E.P. series of tests i n Reading, Writing and Listening. : Paired Comparison of pictures. (b) Non-Verbal: Paired Comparison of pictures (a) Q-Sorts of statements (b) Teacher Questionnaire (a) Q-Sorts of statements (b) Teacher Questionnaire Semantic Differential Semantic Differential Classroom Situation Dimensions of Schooling Instrument 3,21 Communication S k i l l s Basic S k i l l s i n reading, writing and listening were measured - 29 -using the Sequential Tests of Educational Progress (S,T,E.P.) Forms 3A and 4A. Form 3A was used for grade seven; Form kk was used for grades four, five and six. These tests were scored as directed i n the test manual. The scores were summarized as shown below i n Figure 3» FIGURE 3 Form of the Summary of Scores from S.T.E.P. Learners Scores Reading Writing Listening 1 2 3 57 Preference for verbal or non-verbal methods of communication was measured using a paired comparison of pictures. Six different methods of communication were depicted by the drawings. They were! talking, drawing, writing, using "Body English", using a 3-dimenslonal object, and using audio-visual equipment. Talking refers to oral communication and includes listening. Writing refers to written communication and includes the s k i l l s of reading. - 30 -Drawing i s any two-dimensional method of communication that does not use the written word. Body English includes gesture, f a c i a l expression, pantomime, acting or any use of the parts of the body excluding verbal communication. Using a three-dimensional object involves many materials and techniques; the object may be abstract or concrete, but must have three dimensions. Using audio-visual equipment may include images and any verbal message i s produced indirectly through the use of a machine. Prior to the test the drawings were presented to the children. Each drawing was shown independently and i t s meaning discussed thoroughly. The drawings depicting the different methods of communication were photograhed i n pairs using Ross's method of pairing? 1 to Include a l l possible combinations. Prom each pair of drawings the learner chose the preferred method of communication under the conditions shown i n Table VI below. The learners were asked to choose which method TABLE VI CONDITIONS FOR CHOICE: PAIRED COMPARISON OF PICTURES Condition Content of Communication a b 1. Communicate to another person Feeling Experience 2. Receive Communication from Feeling Experience another person ^R. T. Ross, Optimum Orders for the Presentation of Pairs i n the  Method of Paired Comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 25. 193^. Pp. 375 - 382 - 31 -of communication they preferred i n each of the modes described i n Table VI. A mode of communication i s defined i n this instance as a combination of one condition ( l or z) with one of the content choices (a or b). For each pair of pictures presented the picture chosen was recorded as "1" or "2"; " l " i f i t was the f i r s t member of the pair, "2" i f i t was the second member of the pair. Although the pairs were presented according to the optimum order described by Ross (1934), the choices were summarized i n the order: 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, l-5« 1-6, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 4-5, 4-6, 5-6, where each pair of digits represents a pair of pictures. This i s Illustrated i n Figure 4 below. FIGURE 4 Form of the Summary of Scores from the Paired Comparison of Pictures Test Learners 1-2 1-3 Pair 1-4 Scores 4-5 5-6 Communicate 1 to: Feeling 2 57 Communi cate 1 to: Experience 2 57 Communicate 1 from: Feeling 2 57 Communicate 1 from: Experience 2 57 - 32 -3.22 Patterns of Work 32 There were two Q-sorts^ administered: Q-Sort-1: Using the statements on the cards the learner was asked to describe how he actually worked i n the open-area setting. Q-Sort-2: Using the statements on the cards the learner was asked to describe how he would prefer to work i n the open-area setting. There were seventy-five statements i n Q-Sort-1 and sixty-nine i n Q-Sort-2. The learners sorted the cards into an eleven column array. The distributions shown i n Figures 5 and 6 below are approximately normal. FIGURE 5 Q-Sort-1 Distribution Most like me Least like me Column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Number of Cards i n each column 2 3 5 8 12 15 12 8 5 3 2 Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 F. N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Chapter 34. - 3 3 -FIGURE 6 Q-Sort-2 Distribution Most like my Preference Least l i k e Preference my Column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 Number of Cards i n each Column 1 2 4 8 1 2 1 5 1 2 8 4 2 1 Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 There were three kinds of statements on the cards! 1 . Statements describing behavior characteristic of independent patterns of work. 2 . Statements describing behavior characteristic of non-independent patterns of work. 3 . Statements describing behavior characteristic of patterns of work intermediate to these extremes. The statements of Q-Sort-1 and Q-Sort- 2 paralleled each other as shown in Table VII, Other sample statements may be found i n Appendix X. The statements described behavior i n the following categories: 1 . Receiving help. 2 . Grouping practises with other learners. 3 . Self discipline, persistence, assuming responsibility for pursuing an activity to completion. 4 . Receptiveness to new experience, acceptance of challenge, 5 . Assuming responsibility for choosing learning a c t i v i t i e s , 6 . Self evaluation of learning experiences. - Jiv -7. Confidence i n decision making. 8. Originality i n ideas and learning a c t i v i t i e s . TABLE VII EXAMPLES OF STATEMENTS FROM Q-SORTS 1 and 2s PATTERNS OF WORK  Degree of Q-Sort-1 Q-Sort-2 Independence Statements Statements Non-i ndependent I need a l o t of I prefer to get a Behavior help from the lot of help from teacher the teacher Intermediate I need some help I prefer to get Behavior from the teacher some help from the teacher Independent I need hardly any I prefer to get a Behavior help from the l i t t l e help from teacher the teacher The statements on the cards were based on literature describing independent patterns of classroom behavior and discussions with the teachers. Q-Sort-1 measured the degree to which each learner demonstrated independent patterns of work. Q-Sort-2 provided data relevant to the question, "How closely does the program parallel the preferences of the learner as he defines them?" The vali d i t y of the Q-sorts depended on the a b i l i t y of the children to describe themselves accurately, as well as the adequacy of the statements i n describing actual behaviors i n the classroom. Additional data was obtained from the teacher questionnaire. On this instrument, each learner was rated by the teacher on three separate occasions. The rating indicated the frequency of occurance of independent patterns of work. Categories on this instrument were condensed from the eight categories described above. - 35 -This instrument was used by the teachers immediately before, immediately after, and during the main period of testing. The va l i d i t y of the teacher questionnaire depended on the a b i l i t y of the teachers to describe the children accurately. 3.23 Social Responsibility A single Q-sort consisting of seventy-five statements describing behavior i n the classroom related to acceptance of social responsibility was used. Using the statements on the cards, f i r s t to describe himself and second to describe the person he admires most, the learner sorted the cards on two separate occasions into an eleven column array. The approximately normal distributions are shown i n Figures 7 and 8 below. FIGURE 7 Q,-Sort-3 Distribution Most like the way I Least like the way I behave i n class behave i n class Column 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Number of cards 2 3 5 8 12 15 12 8 5 3 2 i n each column Score 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 FIGURE 8 Q,-Sort-4 Distribution Most like I admire the person Least lik e I admire the person Column 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Number of cards i n each column 2 3 5 8 12 15 12 8 5 3 2 Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 There were three kinds of statements on the cards, describing - 36 -behavior indicative of: 1. A high level of social responsibility. 2. An intermediate level of social responsibility. 3. A low level of social responsibility. Examples of the three kinds of statements are given i n Table VIII below. TABLE VIII EXAMPLES OF STATEMENTS FROM Q-SORTS 3 AND 4: ACCEPTANCE OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Acceptance Q-Sort 3 and 4 Statements Level High In groups I always l i s t e n carefully to what others say. Intermediate In groups I sometimes l i s t e n carefully to what others say. Low In groups I always talk so others have to l i s t e n to me. The statements described behavior i n the following categories: 1. Working i n groups. 2. Responsibility for the physical classroom environment. 3. Interpersonal relationships. 4. Tolerance for others' rights, property, and point of view. 5. Sense of justice and sportsmanship. Q-Sort-3 measured the degree to which each learner demonstrated social responsibility. Q-Sort-4 measured the degree to which each learner would lik e to accept social responsibility. Statements on the cards were based on literature describing appropriate social behavior i n the classroom and on discussions with the teachers. The validity of these Q-sorts, as with Q-sorts 1 and 2 depended - 37 -on the a b i l i t y of the children to describe accurately themselves and those they admired. Validity also depended on the adequacy of the statements i n describing actual behavior i n the classroom. Additional data were obtained from part two of the teacher questionnaire. The teacher was asked to rate the frequency each learner exhibited behavior indicative of a high level of social responsibility. Categories on part two of the teacher questionnaire were the five categories described above. Again the v a l i d i t y depended on the a b i l i t y of the teachers to describe the children accurately. 3.24 Scoring of Q-Sorts Each statement was numbered and placed on a separate card. Each learner received a score for each card. The score received was the number of the column into which that card was sorted by the learner. Thus for each Q-sort, each learner received 75 (on 69) scores. The raw data from the Q-sort was recorded i n the form illustrated i n Figure 9 below. FIGURE 9 Form of the Summary of Data From Q-Sorts Cards 1 2 3 Card Scores of Learners 56 57 1 2 3 75 - 38 -The other three Q-sorts were scored i n a similar way and the data summarized as shown above. 3.25 Scoring of Teacher Questionnaire For each factor the learner was rated by the teacher on a seven point scale according to the frequency of occurrence of the behavior described by the factor. A score of seven indicated the behavior occurred at every opportunity, a score of one indicated the behavior never occurred. The score recorded for each learner on each factor was the average of the three scores obtained from the three occasions the questionnaire was completed. There were nine factors, four on independent patterns of work and five on acceptance of social res-ponsibility. The data was recorded i n the form shown i n Figure 10 below, FIGURE 10 Form of the Summary of  Teacher Questionnaire Data Learners 1 2 Aver 3 age Fac tor Sco 5 res 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 57 3.26 Attitude Toward Self A modified semantic differential type of scale was constructed - 39 -"based i n part on Osgood's work-^ and used to measure degree of achieve-ment of a positive self image. Adjective pairs were selected from Osgood's l i s t of adjectives loading highly on what he termed the -3k "evaluative" dimension. The selection was based on the following c r i t e r i a : F i r s t , the concept being judged should be associated connotatively with the adjective pair. Secondly, a rating of the concept on the scale anchored by the evaluative adjectival pairs should indicate a positive (favourable) or negative (unfavourable) self image. The learner was asked to describe himself using the adjective pairs by rating the concepts on a seven-point bi-polar scale. The concepts rated were: 1. How I feel about myself. 2. How I think others feel about me. The scale i s shown i n Figure 11 below. FIGURE 11 Scale Used i n Semantic Differential: Attitude Toward Self Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A lot like me Quite a bit like me A' little bit like me Don't know; Not sure A little bit like me Quite a bit like me A lot like me Bad Good 33"* ^G. E. Osgood, et a l , , The Measurement of Meaning. University of I l l i n o i s Press, Urbana, 111., 1967. •^Although adjective pairs based on the "potency" and "receptivity" factors were included i n the instrument, only those "evaluative" adjective pairs were used i n the data analysis. - 40 -A score of 1 would indicate a positive self image; a score of 7 would Indicate a negative self image. 3.27 Attitude Toward Schooling A semantic differential scale constructed i n a manner similar to that for "Attitude Toward Self" was used. The learner was asked to describe his attitudes toward his schooling using the seven-interval bi-polar space. This i s shown i n Figure 12 below, FIGURE 12 Scale Used i n Semantic Differentials Attitude Toward Schooling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <D CD W <D 54 M U 54 CD U CQ -P CD M CD •H CD •H CD X CD -P CD cO o •H si rH -C rH X! •H x : CO O JC X) rH O O O rH O Si XS CO -p cd •P CO CO * , U -P CD •H CD • r i <» -P CD CD a) •H -P X> -P x i -P •d CD CD si X> o x» . M si •H O CD CD CD C CD CD CD CD rH ni cd x : H JS rH Si co x : CD -p •P -P -P -P -p CD -P -P CD -P +> CD -P +> o •P -P W •H -P w T i -P w r—i cfl CD -P -P CQ o rH CD •H Cd CD 3 X! O rH (0 CD C -P •H CO CD 3 SI o H CD x: JC o (S ;§ si o si < -P " H & S Xi < -p Good Bad The phrase "what the teacher does" was replaced with "the a c t i v i t i e s I do" and "the way i t i s " for the other two concepts previously described i n sections 1,10 and 2.25 35 3.28 Scoring of Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l s ^ The learner rated each concept of the semantic differential by 35 Ibid., Chapter 33. - 41 -selecting one of the values ( l - 7) i n the semantic space between the adjective pairs. This i s ill u s t r a t e d i n Figure 13 below. FIGURE 13 Scoring of the Concept: The Teacher's Role i n The Classroom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good Successful Bad Unsuccessful A separate score was obtained for each adjective pair. For purposes of scoring, certain adjective pairs (listed below) were grouped according to similarities i n meaning as described by Osgood (1967). This was done to accommodate limitations i n the number of variables capable of being included i n the computer program. This method of scoring was used for the other two concepts (Program of Learning and Social Structure of the Classroom) associated with the semantic differential "Attitude Toward Schooling." A similar method was used for the two concepts (Feel About Myself, Others Feel About Me) associated with the semantic differential "Attitude Toward Self." The grouping of adjective pairs for purposes of scoring i s shown in Table IX below. - 42 -TABLE IX GROUPING OF ADJECTIVE PAIRS FOR SCORING SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIALS 1. Attitude Toward Self Concept 1: How I Feel 1. Good-Bad, Kind-Cruel, Nice-Awful About Myself. 2. Attractive-Ugly 3. Useful-Useless 4. Happy-Sad 5. Honest-Dishonest, Fair-Unfair 6. Smart-Dumb, Skillful-Clumsy, Successful-Failure 7. Popular-Unpopular, Important-Unimportant 8. Positive-Negative. Concept 2: How Others As for concept 1 except number Feel About Me 2 was omitted. 2. Attitude Toward Schooling Concept 1: The Teacher's 1. Good-Bad, Helpful-Unhelpful Role In the Classroom. 2. Successful-Unsuccessful, Wise-Foolish, Skillful-Clumsy. 3. Important-Unimportant 4. Honest-Di shonest, Fair-Unfair. 5. Positive-Negative. 6. Useful-Useless 7. Clear-Confusing Concept 2: The Program 1. Good-Bad, Helpful-Unhelpful of Learning. 2. Successful-Failure, Wise-Foolish, Smart-Dumb, Skillful-Clumsy 3. Important-Unimportant 4. True-False - 43 -TABLE IX Continued 5. Positive-Negative 6. Useful-Useless 7. Clear-Confusing Concept 3* The Social 1. Good-Bad, Helpful-Unhelpful Structure of the 2. Friendly-Unfriendly, Accepting-Classroom Rejecting 3. Pleasant-Unpleasant 4. Positive-Negative 5. Useful-Useless 6. Clear-Confusing 7. Happy-Unhappy 8. Successful-Failure, S k i l l f u l -Clumsy The raw data was tabulated as shown below i n Figure 14. Each learner received a score for each adjective pair (or group of adjective pairs) associated with each concept. In the table "Scale" refers to a particular adjective pair, or group of adjective pairs. 3.29 Cognitive Style This variable i s measured on a continuum, ranging from f i e l d independent.-^ It was f i r s t measured using the Children's Embedded -^The terms f i e l d dependent-field independent are used throughout the study when referring to measurement of the variable cognitive style since i t i s this psychological dimension which i s actually measured by the Children's Embedded Figures Test and Hidden Figures Test. I t has been noted however, that f i e l d dependence-field independence acts as a tracer element which permits characterization of learners on a much broader psychological dimension, such as global and analytic. - 44- -FIGURE 14 Form of the Summary of Data From Semantic Differentials Semantic Differential Concept Learners 1 Sc 2 ;ale 3 Sco 4 res 7 8 1. Attitude Towards School Teacher* s Role i n the Classroom 1 2 3 57 Program of Learning 1 2 3 57 Classroom Social Structure 1 2 3 57 2. Attitude Towards Self Feeling About Myself 1 2 57 How Others Feel About Me 1 2 3 57 - 4 5 -Figures Test. This test was administered as directed i n the test manual with the following exceptions: 1 . Instead of individually, the test was administered to groups of ten children at one time. Each child had his own copy of the test. 2. The training session was conducted by the researcher using an overhead projector and transparencies which duplicated the training materials used by the children. This permitted communication between the researcher and a group of children, rather than one individual at a time. The children checked their responses against that shown by the researcher on the overhead projector. 3. Cut out forms of the "tent" and "house" shapes were used during the training session but were not used during the testing. The children were able to refer back to a f u l l scale drawing of the "tent" or "house" shape at the beginning of the corresponding section of the test. 4 . The cost of using the test i n colour for groups was too high. Using the test i n monochrome removed the colour factor. Sieben ( 1 9 7 1) did this i n his study and added four items from the adult Hidden Figures Test to increase the level of d i f f i c u l t y and thus Karp, Konstadt, op. c i t . - 46 -compensate for the lack of colour. Jackson et a l . (1964) investigated the effect of colour vs. no colour i n embedded figures tests. He attempted to compensate for the distracting effect of colour i n the original version by i n -creasing the complexity of l i n e patterns i n the monochromatic version. He found that colour by i t s e l f added l i t t l e unique variance and that d i f f i c u l t uncoloured patterns correlated at about the same level of magnitude with coloured forms, as the coloured forms did with each other. He concluded that the absence of colour could, be compensated by increasing the d i f f i c u l t y of the achromatic patterns. In this study five items from the adult Hidden Figures Test were selected to create a third section of the test with increased d i f f i c u l t y to compensate for the lack of colour. The results of this testing were to be used to characterize the learners on the cognitive style continuum into three cognitive style groups; CS-1 ( f i e l d independent), CS-2 (middle group) and CS-3 ( f i e l d dependent). The learners' scores were very high on this test. This suggested a group of children concentrated at the f i e l d independent end of the cognitive style continuum. It was not possible to use these scores to group the children into three cognitive style groups. To obtain a wider distribution of scores the adult Hidden - 47 -Figures Tesir was administered, on a group basis, i n a manner similar to that used for the Children's Embedded Figures Test. The learners were allowed as much time as they required, to a maximum of one hour, to complete the test. The total time taken to the nearest minute was recorded for each learner. 3.30 Scoring of Children's Embedded Figures Test and Hidden Figures Test The Children's Embedded Figures Test was scored one for a correct response; zero for an incorrect response. The total score was obtained by summing over the test items. This score was not used except to note that, from these data, the sample was highly concentrated at the f i e l d independent end of the cognitive style continuum. The Hidden Figures Test produced two scores for each learner; the number of correct items and the time taken i n minutes. These two scores were treated according to the following formula: ™ n o Time , Time 1 Final Score = + — (Learner-l) # Correct items # Test items These scores were used to place the learners on the cognitive style continuum and into one of three cognitive style groups: 1. CS-1 (Field independent) : Lowest nineteen scores. 2. CS-2 (Middle group) : Middle nineteen scores. 3. CS-3 (Field dependent) : Highest nineteen scores. J 0. K. Buros, Hidden Figures Test, form Cf-1, The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Jersey, Gryphon Press 1972, p.440 - 48 -3.31 Other Independent Variables As described previously on pg. 46, data for the variables age, sex, and grade were obtained from classroom records. Socioeconomic status data were determined from school records and discussion with the teachers. Occupation and approximate income were used to score each learner on the socioeconomic scale described i n Blishen's book, "The Construction and Use of an Occupational Class Scale." 3 9 3.32 Description of the Classroom Situation In order that the applicability of the findings to other comparable situations may be assessed the classroom situation was described on a variety of dimensions. For this purpose the instrument, 40 "Dimensions of Schooling," developed by the Ontario Institute for Studies In Education was used. Each page of the instrument describes several categories relating to one dimension of schooling. For each dimension the person completing the instrument was asked to rank the categories i n terms of how often they actually occur i n the class-room. The instrument was completed by each of the two teachers and the principal independently. The results are reported i n Appendix I. J B, R, Blishen, The Construction and Use of an Occupational Class  Scale, MacMillan Co. 1961. P. 449-458 Dimensions of Schooling. Department of Measurement and Evaluation, Educational Evaluation Program, Ontario Institute for Studies i n Education, 1971. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS 4.00 Methods of Data Analysis The various methods of data analysis that were used i n the study are described i n the sections which follow. 4.01 Discriminant Analysis Discriminant analysis i s a s t a t i s t i c a l method of studying group differences on the basis of a set of dependent variables or criterion scores. Discriminant analysis was originally contemplated i n order to answer the following questions: 1. Could the various cognitive style groups (CS-1, CS-2, CS-3) be discriminated i n terms of their status at the time of testing i n communication s k i l l s , patterns of work, social responsibility, attitudes toward self, and attitudes toward schooling? 2. Along what psychologically meaningful dimensions could the various cognitive style groups be differentiated? 3. Is there a significant correlation between cognitive style groups and the other independent variables of age, sex, grade or socioeconomic status? Prior to discriminant analysis, a multivariant analysis of variance (MANOVA) was carried out to determine whether the group centroids were significantly different for the three cognitive style groups. The hypothesis of equality of group dispersions was also tested. - 49 -- 50 -The null hypothesis that group dispersions were equal was tested at the 0,01 level of significance and was accepted as tenable. The null hypothesis that group centrolds were equal was rejected at the 0.01 level of significance. The multivariant analysis indicated that there was insufficient ground for carrying out a discriminant analysis. 4.02 Hierarchical Grouping Analysis Since differentiation between cognitive style groups on the basis of scores on the dependent variables was not possible hierarchical grouping analysis (cluster analysis) was carried out to determine i f any natural clusters or groupings existed at a l l among the subjects i n terms of their scores on the dependent variables. Hierarchical grouping analysis begins by defining each learner as a single group or one-member cluster. I t then procedes to reduce the number of natural groups i n steps un t i l a l l learners are combined into one group. The number of groups i s reduced by comparing the group score profiles on the dependent variables and progressively associating them into new and larger groups i n such a way as to minimize an overall estimate of variation within the groups. For each step the error value i s calculated: Sum of squared differences between corresponding scores on the variables Error value = Number of learners i n the potential group and reported together with a tree-graph of the grouping. In selecting - 51 -the particular set of groups to examine substantial jumps i n error value are sought. A large jump i n error value indicates that a reduction i n the number of groups i n the next stage w i l l involve a much larger increase i n error value than was associated with previous reductions. Since the objective Is to reduce the number of groups to as few as possible, small error jumps are ignored and a cut off i s made at the f i r s t large error jump. Subsequent cut offs may be made at other following large error jumps to obtain other sets of larger and fewer groups for study. On selecting groups for study, the members of each group were identified and their scores on the independent variables examined for consistent patterns within and between groups. In this study the f i r s t three large error jumps were used to obtain three groups. These were examined as described above. The analysis was done using a l l f i f t y dependent variables. It was then repeated independently using S.T.E.P. scores, teacher questionnaire scores, and semantic differential scores to determine i f there was consistency i n grouping or i f new grouping patterns might emerge. 4.03 Q-Sort Analysis As a more intensive analysis of the two major dependent variables patterns of work and social responsibility, Q-analysis used. The questions of concern were: 1. Are there groups of subjects who sort the items i n a similar way? - 52 -2. What i s the nature of these groups? 3. For the members of a particular group, i s there a significant correlation between the scores on each of the independent variables? In order to answer these questions Q-analysis followed these steps: 1. Each learner's sort of items was correlated with every other learner's sort to produce an intercorrelation matrix. This matrix was factor analyzed with learners as variables and items as observations. The principal axis solution so obtained was rotated to the varimax criterion for ease of interpretation. The analysis produces groupings of learners based on similar patterns of sorting the items, 2. For each group the item responses of the most representative learners were weighted based on how highly associated the learners were with the factor representing a particular group. The weighted responses were summed across each item producing a weighted item score for each item. These were converted to Z-scores which were then used to rank each item i n a hierarchy of item acceptance for that particular group of learners, 3. The highest and lowest ten percent of the items i n the hierarchy of item acceptance can then be used to characterize a particular group. The top ten percent describe behavior highly typical of that group, the bottom ten percent describe behavior highly atypical of that group. This answers question one posed on page 51, Q-analysis was carried out for each of the four Q-sorts independently thus generating data pertinant to; - 53 -1. The actual behavioral modes of learners with respect to patterns of work and social responsibility. 2. The preferred behavioral modes of learners with respect to patterns of work. 3. The admired behavioral modes with respect to social responsibility, 4,04 Paired-Comparison Scaling In order to obtain data descriptive of the preferred method of communication by cognitive style groups, the pictures depicting the various modes were scaled using the Thurstone paired-comparison technique. This method of analysis f i r s t considers the frequencies with which each picture (method of communication) i s preferred to each of the other pictures. From this, the proportions of times each pre-ference i s made and the Z-scores associated with these proportions are calculated. These are used to scale each picture on a preference continuum, This analysis was carried out separately for each cognitive style group and each mode of communication. The scale values were translated, for ease of interpretation, so that the smallest scale value was zero. The following uses were made of the data: 1. An examination of the data for preferences common across groups and modes of communication, 2. Comparison between cognitive style groups for each of the - & -four modes of communication taken separately and i n pairs, 3. Comparison within cognitive style groups and across modes of communication taken a l l together and i n pairs, 4. An examination of the data for preferences peculiar to particular pictures or picture groupings. In comparisons 1-4 above consistency i n rankings or con-sistent differences i n rankings of the pictures were sought. Ranking refers to the position of the picture on the preference continuum. 4.10 Results of the Data Analyses In the sections which follow, the results of each method of data analysis are presented, 4.11 Results of Discriminant Analysis As described i n Section 4.01, the null hypothesis for equality of centroids of the cognitive style groups was tenable at the 0.10 level of significance. Because of this no further analysis was attempted. This result indicates that there was no significant difference between the cognitive style groups based on their score profiles on a l l the dependent variables. 4.12 Results of Hierarchical Grouping Analysis This analysis revealed group correlations with two of the independent variables, sex and socioeconomic status. There was grouping - 55 -by each sex and by socioeconomic category-2. when a l l f i f t y dependent variables were used i n the analysis. Using S.T.E.P. scores, teacher questionnaire scores and semantic differential scores independently i n the analysis produced no new grouping trends. However, groups of each sex and groups of socioeconomic category-2 were found i n each analysis. The results of these analyses are presented i n Table X below. In the table, cut off - 1 refers to the f i r s t substantial error jump and error values of the lowest magnitude. Gut off - 2 refers to the second substantial error jump and cut of f - 3 refers to the third substantial error jump with error values of the highest magnitude. The error values enclosing the jump are reported i n brackets. - 56 -TABLE X RESULTS OF HIERARCHICAL GROUPING ANALYSIS Dependent Variables Used Cut off Point (error value) Independent Variables Associated with Groups Generated by Analysis A l l 1. (66.1-71.4) 2. (91.3-110.3) 3. (110.3-144.7) (a) 6 male members (b) 7 female members, 1 male member (a) 6 S.E.S.-2 members, 1 S.E.S.^ 1 member (a) 6 male members (identical group to group (a), cut off 1 above) S #T iE .P. only-1. (4.16-7.76) 2. (9.7-15-4) 3. (15.4-52.6) (a) 3 male members (a) 12 S.E.S.-2 members, 1 S.E.S.-8 member No association. Teacher Question-naire only-1. (4.65-6.62) 2. (16.3724.4-); 3. (33.2,102.1) (a) 3 S.E.S.-2 members (b) 2 S.E.S.-2 members (c) 2 female members (d) 4 male members (e) 4 male members (a) 10 male members, 1 female member (a) 10 male members, 1 female member (identical group to group (a), cut off 2 immediately above). Semantic Differenr,. t i a l s only-1. (39.1-46.1) 2. (69.0-103.8) 3. (114.9-182.7) (a) 4 male members (b) 4 S.E.S.-2 members (c) 2 female members (a) 5 male members (a) 5 male members (identical group to group (a), cut off 2 immediately above). S.E.S. : Socioeconomic class. See sections 3.00 and 3.27. - 57 -4.13 Results of Q-Sort Analysis The Q-Analysis did not reveal any of the hypothesized relationships but did describe some very interesting unexpected group characteristics. These are described i n the sections which follow. 4.131 Independent Patterns of Work The analysis of Q-Sort-1 revealed three groups with common patterns of behavior i n each group. One of the groups had only three members and i s not considered. Groups one and two had twenty-one and ten members respectively. The descriptions given i n Table II below are summarized from the statements on those cards of very high and very low association with the particular group. The actual statements are reproduced i n Appendix II, Group one did not exhibit independent patterns of work and had a high dependency on the teacher. Group two demonstrated some i n -dependent patterns of work but had l i t t l e drive. The analysis of Q-Sort-2 produced three groups with twenty-one, eight, and five members respectively. Ten members of group one were also members of group one from Q-Sort-1, thus allowing a cautious comparison of preference for patterns of work with actual patterns of work. Group one did not exhibit preference for independent patterns of work and i n some instances preferences agreed with actual work patterns of group one from Q-Sort-1. Group two demonstrated preferences - 58 -for patterns of work intermediate between the independent and non-independent extremes. Group three also demonstrated preference for an intermediate degree of independence i n work patterns. The statements describing the various groups generated by the Q-Analysis are presented i n order of acceptance i n Table XI below, TABLE XI STATEMENTS DESCRIBING ACTUAL AND PREFERRED BEHAVIOR: INDEPENDENT PATTERNS OF WORK Actual Behavior Statements Preferred Behavior Statements Group Members In this class, group members: Group Members In this class group members prefer: Group 1, 402,403, 407,411, 505,506, 512,513, 517,601, 609,611, 612,614, 701,707, • 708,709, 711,712, 715. (a) Require a great deal of assistance from the teacher, (b) Are not receptive to new ideas and dislike d i f f i c u l t tasks, (c) Are not persistent i n their work, (d) Do not discuss their ideas with others. (e) Do not work with other learners often. Group 1 (a) Not to discuss their ideas with others, (b) To get marks for a l l their work. (c) The teacher to or-ganize their time. (d) Other learners, not the teacher to pro-vide assistance with learning d i f f i c u l t i e s . (e) Not to work with other learners very often (f) To fool around and not be reminded often what to do. (g) ,Not tb persevere on d i f f i c u l t tasks. 401,406, 408,411, 501,505, 506,508, 509,513, 51^ ,517, 601,606, 607,612, 613,701, 709,710, 715. Group 2 404,502, 504,511, 603,604, 613,706, 710,714. (a) Work with other learners often. (b) Need to be prodded to commence their work and reminded to f i n i s h on time. (c) Discuss their own ideas with others. Group 2 502,504, 515,605, 609,702, 712,714. (a) To work with other learners often (b) To receive some help and reminders from the teacher, but not often (c) The teacher to evaluate their work once i n a while. - 59 -TABLE XI Continued (d) Come to democratic group decisions. (e) Control their own time and select their own learning a c t i v i t i e s . (f) Are receptive to new ideas. (d) Do not require marks for a l l their work. (e) Not to do things about which they are already knowledgeable. (f) Not to receive assistance with learning d i f f i -culties from other learners, (g) To waste time fooling around i n class. Group 3 409,503. 511.512. 711. (a) To work with other learners often. (b) To receive some help and reminders from the teacher but not often. (c) To have some time for fooling around, (d) To be receptive to new ideas sometimes, and to discuss their own ideas with others, (e) Not to receive assistance with learning d i f f i c u l t i e s from other learners, (f) Not to self evaluate their own learning. - 60 -4.132 Acceptance of Social Responsibility The analysis of Q-Sort-3 produced four groups, two of which had only two members each and are not discussed. Groups one and two had twenty-five and six members respectively. Group one members described themselves as highly socially irresponsible; group two members described themselves as highly socially responsible. The analysis of Q-Sort-4 generated two groups with twenty-one and four members respectively. Group one shared sixteen members with group one of Q-Sort-3 so that a useful comparison of admired behavior with actual behavior can be made. Group one members admired other learners who were highly socially irresponsible. There was considerable agreement i n patterns of behavior admired and patterns of behavior used 42 between group one from Q-Sort-4 and group one from Q-Sort-3. Group two admired a standard of social responsibility considerably higher than that of group one. There were however major inconsistancies i n that standard. The statements describing the various groups generated by the Q-Analysis are presented i n order of acceptance i n Table XII below. It i s pertinent to consider i n this comparison that the choice of statements to describe behavior most typical and least typical of the learner, ranged to seventy-five. Twenty-five of these statements described socially responsible behavior, twenty-five described socially irresponsible behavior, and twenty-five described behavior intermediate to those extremes. - 61 -TABLE XII STATEMENTS DESCRIBING ACTUAL AND ADMIRED BEHAVIOR; ACCEPTANCE OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Actual Behavior Preferred Behavior Group Statements Group Statements Members In this class group Members In this class group members members: admire other learners who: Group 1 (a) Believe i t i s Group 1 (a) Care only about their 403,404, acceptable to 404,409, own feelings. 407,409, l i e to get what 411,504, (b) Believe i t i s accept-411,505. you want. 505,506, able to l i e to get 506,508, (b) Do not accept 509,512, what they want. 509,511. responsibility 517,603, (c) Take what they want 517,603, for their 604,605, without asking per-604,612, breakage or mess. 606,611, mission. 613,701, (c) Need to be able 612,708, (d) Need to be able to win 703,707, to win as a con- 709,710, as a condition to play 708,709, dition to play 711,713, and get angry i f they 710,711. and get angry i f 714. do not win. 712,713. they do not win. (e) Will not accept res-714,715. (d.) Believe i t i s ponsibility for their acceptable to breakage or mess. break a promise. (f) "Bug" others for fun. (e) Care only about (g) Do not obey the class their own rules. feelings. (f) Cannot admit they are wrong when they really are. (g) Do not ask per-mission to borrow, - 62 -TABLE XII Continued (h) Have no tolerance for the beliefs of others. Grout) 2 (a) Would not start Group 2 (a) Obey class rules 512,608, a fight but 607,609, and accept res-609,611, would fight a 613,705. ponsibility for 614,706, bully i n defense their mess. of a small child (b) Do not fight with or would fight or "bug" other i f challenged. learners. (b) Ask permission (c) Ask permission to borrow. to borrow. (c) Share their (d) Need to be able equipment with to win as a con-others. dition to play. (d) Take care of (e) Believe i t i s school equip- acceptable to ment. break a promise. (e) Try to contri- (f) Believe i t i s bute ideas i n acceptable to l i e groups. to get what they (f) Would admit want. they were wrong (g) Do not fool around i f they really a l o t . were. (h) Believe i t i s not (g) Do not need to r' necessary to pay win to play. for breakage. (h) Believe i t i s not acceptable to l i e to get what they want. - 63 -4,133 Relationship of Independent Variables to Q-Sort Groups There was no relationship between the membership of the Q-sort groups and the scores of those members on the independent variables, Q-sort group members ranged across age, grade, sex, cognitive style and socioeconomic status. A tabulation of the values of these variables for each Q-sort group i s given i n Appendix III. 4.14 Results of Paired-Comparison Scaling Two general trends were immediately apparent. Across a l l modes of communication a l l groups ranked picture-1 (talking) f i r s t . Almost a l l groups ranked picture - 5 (3~D object) last across a l l modes of communication except for one instance i n which picture -5 was ranked second l a s t , Talking then i s the preferred method of communication. Using a 3 -oi mensional model i s the least preferred method. Another trend was observed for picture-2 (drawing) which was ranked low or i n the middle by a l l groups across a l l modes of communication except i n one instance, Picture-2 and picture - 6 (using A-V equipment) were ranked centrally and together i n eight instances of the total of twelve. Within cognitive style groups, C S . - l (analytic) showed a definite preference for picture-4 (Body English) as compared to CS.-3 (less analytic). C.S.-l group ranked picture-4 second three times and third, once, C.S.-3 group ranked picture-4 low i n preference. This confirms the expectation, described i n section 2.21, that analytic children would have a greater preference for use of parts of the body - 6:4 -i n communication than global children. Gonsistancies of a very specific nature were observed when making the other comparison described i n Section 4,04 but no sig-nificant general consistancies were apparent. 4,15 Summary of the Results with Reference to the Hypotheses 1. The hypothesized relationship between cognitive style groups and achievement of the selected program goals was not revealed by the results of the study. 2. I f there was a significant correlation between cognitive style groups and the other independent variables, i t could not be determined. An examination of the data tabled i n Appendix IV suggests that this correlation does not exist, except as described i n Section 1.61, for the tendency toward a more analytic cognitive style with normal maturation. 3. The hierarchical grouping analysis did reveal groupings of learners based on achievement but the groupings were related to only two of the independent variables: sex and socioeconomic status. This relationship was not consistent across a l l groups. 4. The paired comparison scaling determined that highly analytic learners have a greater preference for, "Body English," as a method of communication than moderately analytic learners. 5. The Q-analysis, while i t did not support the hypothesis, did reveal unexpected and significant characterizations of group behavior patterns, CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5«10 Conclusions 5.11 Differentiation between Cognitive Style Groups That there was no differentiation between cognitive style groups on the basis of their achievement score profiles could be expected i n view of the highly analytic nature of the majority of the children. This study was hindered i n determining significant differences by the fact that there was no truly global group within the sample. In this light i t should be noted that a differentiation was made between highly analytic (C.S.-l) and less analytic (C.S.-3) children on preference for the use of parts of the body i n communication. This result i s i n agreement with the expectation based on Witkin's (1969) description of body concept i n cognitive style groups. There was a higher proportion of older (Grade ?) children i n the highly analytic group than i n the least analytic group. In addition there was a higher proportion of younger (Grade 4) children i n the least analytic group than i n the highly analytic group. This result agrees with Witkin's (196?) findings regarding the development of an Individual's cognitive style with maturation. 5.12 Grouping by Sex and Socioeconomic Status The results of this study suggest that some learners are grouped by sex according to similar score profiles on the dependent variables. It i s interesting to note that within this age group (9 - 12 years) - 65 -- 66 -there i s a natural tendency i n children to associate principally with members of the same sex. As a basis for grouping i n the classroom sex alone i s not a particularly useful variable as i t permits only two groups. There are certain characteristics of the results that should be noted: 1. Several distinct groups of the same sex (male or female) were found. 2. More groups of males than groups of females were found. 3. Several groups were not characterized by sex or any independent variable measured. It i s possible that other Independent variables not measured could be used to characterize groups. In order to better understand these grouping patterns the nature of the score profiles on the dependent variables should be determined. Grouping by socioeconomic status was observed only for S.E.S. class-2. Groups of up to twelve members were found. This suggests that socioeconomic status i s related to achievement but the absence of consistency within groups for the other socioeconomic classes detracts from the conclusiveness of the result. This then, can be interpreted only as suggesting a link between socioeconomic status and achievement on the dependent variables. 5.13 Patterns of Work The largest groups practised or preferred non-independent patterns of work. Small groups of children did practise or prefer some independent patterns of work. Even among highly analytic children - 67 -within this age range, independent work patterns are suited only to a small minority of learners. The majority of learners requires and prefers structuring of the learning experience to he done for them. In a classroom situation with a more normal distribution of cognitive style types, this trend i n requirements and preferences can be expected to be even more pronounced. 5,14 Social Responsibility The descriptions of the actual and admired behavior of the largest groups reflects very strongly a self-centered, dishonest and competitive ethic. Neither schools nor parents would consciously teach the value, "It's OK to l i e to get what you want." I t i s probable that the children have unconsciously absorbed these behavior patterns by observation of behavior i n the society i n which they l i v e . That they are i n a high socioeconomic class and have these standards may be revealing of the ethic that i s required i n practise (though not preached) to, "reach the top," i n this society. Five to eight years of schooling have had l i t t l e effect i n conforming the standards of these children to the accepted norm. This reflects the researcher's own experience: When the value system taught by the school contradicts that practised i n the home or by society, the school Is not successful i n reaching the learner. There are however, small groups demonstrating a high standard of social behavior or admiring those who exhibit some social responsibility. - 68 -These results suggest that the school, instead of preaching an ideal standard of social behavior, should describe more accurately the patterns of social behavior as practised i n the adult world. Based on this description the desirable behavior patterns could be reinforced i n the child's world, with undesirable behavior patterns recognized for what they are: compromised behavior exhibited every day by many people i n the adult world. 5.20 Recommendations for Further Research The findings of this study suggest several areas i n which further research i s needed. 1. To determine i f discrimination between cognitive style groups on the basis of the dependent variable score profiles i s possible the study should be repeated using a sample with a wider range of cognitive styles. 2. The score profiles of the children grouped by sex or socioeconomic status should be described. It would then be possible to determine i f consistent patterns of achievement exist across groups of the same sex or socioeconomic status. 3. Learner achievement on the dependent variables should be determined for groups with a wide range of socioeconomic status. It could then be determined i f this variable i s useful i n grouping learners. 4. The relation to achievement of other independent variables such as: I.Q., response to various classroom environments, perseverance, interests, needs, and parent attitudes toward the principal, teacher, - 69 -school, or schooling could be determined. I t would then be possible to answer the question: Of the independent variables measured i n this study or l i s t e d above, which variables or combination of variables could best be used for a p r i o r i grouping of children for instruction? Since the population used i n this study was from a high socio-economic class, an investigation of acceptance of social responsibility by other socioeconomic classes i s warranted. Parallel to this a study of other ethnic groups or f i r s t and second generation immigrant groups with respect to their acceptance of social responsibility could be done. Results from these studies could confirm or reject the hypothesis that the standards of social behavior revealed by this study are general throughout our society. This knowledge would have considerable significance for decisions determining the nature of the value system taught by our schools. 6. The determination of actual and preferred patterns of work of learners i n other classroom situations i n which self-direction i s , or i s not stressed could assist i n interpreting the results of this study. I t would also carry implications for the most suitable methods of instruction to use for particular learners i n particular learning situations. - 7 0 -REFERENCES 1. Bertini, M. Traits Somatiques Aptitudes Perceptives et Traits Superieurs de Personal!te. Paper read at the International Congress of Psychology, Bonn, Germany, I960. 2 . Blischen, B. R. The Construction and Use of an Occupational Class Scale. MacMillan, 1 9 6 1 . Pp. 4 4 9 - 4 5 8 . 3 . Buros, 0. K. The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook. Gryphon Press, New Jersey, 1 9 7 2 . Pp. 440. 4 . Cohen, J. The Factorial Structure of the W.A.I.S. Between Early Adulthood and Old Age. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 2 1 , 1 9 5 7 . Pp. 2 8 3 - 2 9 0 . 5 . Cohen, J. The Factorial Structure of the W.I.S.C. at Ages 7 - 6 . 1 0 - 6 , and 1 3 - 6 . Journal of Consulting Psychology, 2 3 , 1 9 5 9 . Pp. 285-299. 6 . Corah, N. L. Differentiation i n Children and Their Parents. Journal of Personality, 3 3 , 1 9 6 5 . Pp. 3OO-339. 7 . Crutchfield, R, S., D. G. Woodworth, R. E. Albrecht. Perceptual Performance andthe Effective Person. Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Development Anter-TN - 5 8 - 6 0 . ASTIA Document No. AD 1 5 1 0 3 9 , 1 9 5 8 . 8 . . Davis, J. K. and H. J, Klausmeier. Cognitive Style and Concept  Identification as a Function of Complexity and Training Procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 6 1 , 6 , 1 9 7 0 . Pp. 4 2 3 - 4 3 0 . 9 . Dimensions of Schooling, Department of Measurement and Evaluation, Educational Evaluation Program, Ontario Institute for Studies i n Education, 1 9 7 1 . 1 0 . Di Stefano, J. J. Interpersonal Perceptions of Field-Independent and Field-Dependent Teachers and Students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1 9 6 9 . 1 1 . Doob, L. W. Behavior and Grammatical Style. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 5 6 , 1 9 5 8 . Pp. 398-400. 1 2 . Frederick, W. Information Processing and Concept Learning at Grades 6 , 8 , and 1 0 as a Function of Cognitive Style. Technical Report 4 4 , Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1 9 6 7 . - 71 -13. Freedman, K., J. O'Hanlon, P. Oltman, H. A. Witkin. The Imprint of Psychological Differentication on Kinetic Behavior i n Varying Communicative Contexts. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 79, 1972. Pp. 239-258. 14. Gardner, R. W. Field Dependence as a Determinant of Susceptibility to Certain Illusions. American Psychologist, 12, 1957. P. 397. 15. Gardner, R. W. Cognitive Controls of Attention Deployment or Determinants of Visual Illusions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 1961. Pp. 120-127. 16. Goodenough, D. R. and S. A. Karp. Field Dependence and Intellectual Functioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 1961. Pp. 241-246. 17. Gray, J . L. and L. M. Knief. The Relationship between Cognitive Style and School Achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 43, 4, Summer 1975. Pp. 67-73. 18. Grieve, T. D. and J. K. Davis. The Relationship of Cognitive Style and Method of Instruction to Performance i n Nineth  Grade Geography. Journal of Educational Research, 65, 3> 1971. Pp. 137-141. 19. Grimes, A. D. A Study of Teacher, Methods, and Cognitive Style Effects on Achievement of Science Process S k i l l s . Unpublished master's thesis, University of Br i t i s h Columbia, 1973. 20. Jackson, D. N, Stability i n Resistance to Field Forces. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1955• 21. Jackson, D. N, Independence and Resistance to Perceptual Field Forces. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56, 1958. Pp. 279-281. 22. Jackson, D. N., S. Messick and C. T. Myers. Evaluation of Group and Individual Forms of Embedded Figures Measures  of Field-Independence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24, 2, 1964. Pp. 177-191. 23. Jennings, B. S. Some Cognitive Control Variables and Psychological Dimensions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, I967. Ann Arbor Michigan University Microfilms 1968 No. 68-13, O i l . - 72 -24. Kagan, J. Reflection - Impulsivity and Reading A b i l i t y i n Primary Grade Children. Child Development, 36, 1965. Pp. 609-628. 25. Karp, S. A. Field Dependence and Overcoming Embeddedness. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 271 1963. Pp. 294-302. 26. Karp, S. A., L. Silberman and S. Winters. Psychological Differentiation and Socioeconomic Status, Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 28, 1969, Pp. 55-60. 27. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. 2nd ed. New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973. 28. Kerlinger, F. N. and E, J. Pedhazur. Multiple Regression i n Behavioral Research. New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973. 29. Konstadt, N. and E. Forman, Field Dependence and External Directedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 1965. Pp. 490-493. 30. Marcus, E. S. The Relationship of Psychological Differentiation to the Congruence of Temporal Patterns of Speech. Un-published doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1970. 31. Lee, L., J. Kagan and A. Rabson. The Influence of a Preference for Analytic Categorization Upon Concept Acquisition. Child Development, Jk, I963. Pp. 433-442. 32. Messick, S, and F, Damarin. Cognitive Styles and Memory for Faces. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 1964. Pp. 313-318. 33. Newbigging, P. L, The Relationship between Reversible Perspective and Embedded Figures. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 8, 195^ . Pp. 204-208. 34. Ohmacht, F, W. Effects of Field Independence and Dogmatism on Reversal and Non Reversal Shifts i n Concept Formation. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 22, 1966. Pp. 491-497. 35. Osgood, C. E., G. J, Suci and P. H. Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, I l l i n o i s : University of I l l i n o i s Press, - 73 -36. Perez..P. Experimental Instructions and Stimulus Content as Variables i n the Size Constancy Perception of  Schizophrenics and Normals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1955• 37. Pollack, I. W, and A. Kiev. Spatial Orientation and Psychotherapy: An Experimental Study of Perception. Journal of Nervous Mental Disorders, 137, 1963. Pp. 93-97. 38. Robinson, J. E. and J. L. Gray. Cognitive Style as a Variable i n School Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 5, 197^ . Pp. 793-799. 39. Ross, R. T. Optimum Orders for the Presentation of Pairs i n the Method of Paired Comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 25, 1934. Pp. 375~382. 40. Rudin, S, A. and R. Stagner. Figure - Ground Phenomena i n the Perception of Physical and Social Stimuli. Journal of Psychology, 45, 1958. Pp. 213-225. 41. Satterly, D. J. Cognitive Styles, Spatial Ability, and School Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 1, 1976. Pp. 36-42. 42. Scott, N. C. Jr. Cognitive Style and Inquiry Strategy: A 5 Year Study. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 10, 4, 1973. Pp. 323-330. 43. Sieben, G. Cognitive Style and Children's Performance on Measures of Elementary Science Competencies. Unpublished master's thesis, University of British Columbia, 1971. 44-, Thornell, J, G. A Study of Relationships between Cognitive  Style and Selected Instructional Methods for Children at the Elementary School Level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1974. 45. Thornell, J. G. Research on Cognitive Styles: Implications for Teaching and Learning. Educational Leadership, 33, April 1976. Pp. 502-504. 46. Winestine, M. C. Turnship and Psychological Differentiation. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 8, 3, 1969, Pp. 436-455. 47. Witkin, H. A., R, B. Dyk, H. F. Faterson, D. R, Goodenough and S, A, Karp. Psychological Differentiation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, I962. - lh -48. Witkin, H. A., D. R. Goodenough and S. A. Karp. S t a b i l i t y  of Cognitive Style from Childhood to Young Adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 3, 1967. Pp. 291-300. 4-9. Witkin, H, A. A Cognitive Style Approach to Cross Cultural  Research. International Journal of Psychology, 2, 4, 1967. Pp. 233-250. 50. Witkin, H. A., H. B. Lewis and E. Weil, Affective Reactions and Patient Therapist Interactions Among More Differentiated and Less Differentiated Patients Early i n Therapy. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 146, 1968. Pp. 193-208. 51. Witkin, H. A. Some Implications of Research on Cognitive Style for Problems i n Education, Professional School Psychology, J, I969. Pp. 198-227. 52. Witkin, H. A., P. K. Ottman, E. Raskin and S. A, Karp, A Manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1971. 53. Witkin, H. A. The Role of Cognitive Style i n Academic Performance and Teacher-Student Relations. Research Bulletin RB-73-H. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, Feb, 1973. 54. Wu, J. J. Cognitive Style and Task Performance: A Study of Student Teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ann Arbor Michigan, University of Michigan, I967. - 7 5 -APPENDIX I DIMENSIONS OF SCHOOLING SCORES SCORES**? Dimension Max. Score 4 4 Person Scoring I II III Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Assignment of students to teachers 5 4 1 7 0 . 3 2 4 3 0.80 3 6 0 . 6 7 Time Scheduling 140 1 0 1 0 . 7 2 1 0 5 0 . 7 5 1 0 9 0 . 7 8 Free Time 140 1 0 9 0 . 7 8 1 3 6 0 . 9 7 1 3 6 0 . 9 7 Rule Making 5 4 42 0 . 7 8 41 0 . 7 6 4 7 0 . 8 7 Rule Enforcing 5k 2 3 0 . 4 3 2 0 0 , 3 7 24 0 . 4 4 Defining General Objectives 140 9 8 0 . 7 0 46 0 . 3 3 4 5 0 . 3 2 Student Mobility 1 6 1 0 0 . 6 2 1 6 1 . 0 1 6 1 . 0 Development of Materials 1 6 9 O . 5 6 8 0 . 5 0 6 0 . 3 7 Selection of Materials 140 1 1 5 0.82 1 3 6 0 . 9 7 1 1 2 0.80 F l e x i b i l i t y of Environment 1 6 1 0 0 . 6 2 1 0 0 . 6 2 1 6 1 . 0 Learning Environment 5 4 24 0 . 4 4 3 6 0 . 6 7 2 1 0 . 3 9 Other Adult Involve-ment 1 6 1 2 0 . 7 5 8 0 . 5 0 2 0 . 1 2 Peer Group Assistance 1 6 1 1 0 . 6 9 8 0 . 5 0 1 6 1 . 0 Media Usage 1 6 14 0 . 8 7 1 6 1 . 0 1 6 1 . 0 Teacher Focus 1 6 1 2 0 . 7 5 14 0 . 8 7 1 5 0 . 9 4 Teacher Role 5 4 4 7 0 . 8 7 5 4 1 . 0 5 1 0 . 9 4 Cooperative Teaching 5 4 3 1 0 . 5 7 18 0 . 3 3 2 6 0.48 Student Involvement i n Formulating Approaches to Learning 1 6 1 2 0 . 7 5 14 0 . 8 7 1 2 0 . 7 5 - ?6 -APPENDIX I - Continued SCORES Dimension Max. Score Person Scoring I II III Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Student Pacing 54 45 0.83 54 1.0 51 0.94 Independent Study-Time 54 51 0.94 54 1.0 54 1.0 Subgrouping Criteria 16 16 1.0 14 0.87 16 1.0 Subgrouping Stability- 16 12 0.75 14 0.87 16 1.0 Age,. Range 16 16 1.0 16 1.0 16 1.0 Defining Instructional Objectives 140 40 0.29 46 0.33 35 0.25 Promotion Timing 54 54 1.0 54 1.0 54 1.0 Evaluation Focus 54 54 1.0 48 0.89 54 1.0 Timing of Evaluation 16 14 0.87 8 0.50 8 0.50 Student Role i n Evaluation 16 10 0.62 9 O.56 10 0.62 Evaluation Procedures 54 39 0.70 47 0.87 54 1.0 4^ / \ 'For a description of the scoring system, refer to Appendix IX (bj. 44 Person Scoring: I: Principal; II: Teacher-1; III: Teacher-2. - 77 -APPENDIX II Q-SORT STATEMENTS FOR EACH GROUP FROM Q-ANALYSIS 1. Q-Sort-1: Actual Behavior: Independent Patterns of Work Group-1: Rank Statements highly associated with group-1. 1. The teacher hooks most of my time for me, 2. The teacher shows me exactly what to do for my projects. 3. When I hear a new idea, I don't want to l i s t e n . 4. I need a l o t of help from the teacher. 5. I f a job i s too hard I just give up and forget about i t . 6. The teacher books most of my daily a c t i v i t i e s for me. 7. I keep my opinions and ideas to myself. 8. I only work on easy puzzles or games I've done before. : Statements of low association with group-1. 75. I book most of my daily a c t i v i t i e s myself. 74. Sometimes I try to find out more about new things, 73. Even i f a job i s really hard I stick with i t until I fin i s h i t . 72. I usually book my own time to do each activity. 71. I often t e l l my ideas and opinions to others, 70. When I have the chance I try new things I haven't done before. 69. I work with other kids most of the time. 68, Sometimes I choose what topic I am going to work on. Group-2 Rank Statements highly associated with group-2 1. I work with other kids most of the time. - 78 -2. I often s i t around and talk rather than get down to work, 3. I often have to "be told to get on with my work. 4. I sometimes fool around instead of getting down to work. 5. I often t e l l my opinions and ideas to others, 6 . In groups I decide with the other kids what to do. 7. Sometimes I have to be told to get on with my work. 8 . Sometimes I forget to fin i s h my work on time, i f I'm not reminded, s Statements of low association with group-2. 75. I hardly ever have to be told to get on with my work. 74, I hardly ever have to work with other kids. 73« The teacher books most of my daily a c t i v i t i e s for me. 72. I keep my opinions and ideas to myself. 71. I usually f i n i s h my work on time without being reminded. ? 0 . The teacher books most of my time for me. 6 9 . Most of the time I get down to work without wasting time. 6 8 . When I hear a new idea I don't want to l i s t e n . 2. Q-Sort-2. Preferred Behavior: Independent Patterns of Work Group-2 Rank Statements highly associated with group-1: 1. I prefer not to talk about my ideas with others, 2. I prefer to get marks for everything I do. 3. In groups I prefer not to share my ideas with others. 4. In groups I prefer to do what the other kids decide. 5. I prefer to fool around a l o t i n class. - 79 -6. I prefer the teacher to book a l l my daily a c t i v i t i e s . 7. I prefer other kids to help me find the answers. : Statements of low association with group-1. 69. I prefer to get some help from the teacher. 68. I prefer to ask the teacher for help once i n a while. 67. I prefer to be reminded often what to do, 66. I prefer to work a l o t with other kids. 65. I prefer to do new things I haven't done before. 64. I prefer to fi n i s h a job even i f i t i s hard. 63. I prefer to book a l l my class time myself. Group-2. Rank Statements highly associated with group-2. 1. I prefer to work a l o t with other kids. 2. I prefer to be reminded often what to do. 3. I prefer to ask the teacher for help once in a while. 4. I prefer to get some help from the teacher. 5. I prefer to be reminded sometimes what to do. 6. I prefer to be reminded once i n a while to get on with my work. 7. I prefer the teacher to t e l l me once i n a while i f my work i s OK or not. : Statements of low association with group-2. 69. I prefer not to waste any time i n class fooling around. 68. I prefer not to be reminded what to do. 67. I prefer to do things I already know a l o t about. - 80 -66. I prefer to get marks for everything I do. 65. I prefer other kids to help me find the answers. 6k. I prefer the teacher to t e l l me a l l the time i f my work i s OK or not. 63. I prefer to work without help from the teacher, Group-3. Rank Statements highly associated with group-3. 1. I prefer to work a l o t with other kids. 2. I prefer to be reminded often what to do. 3. I prefer to ask the teacher for help once i n a while. k. I prefer to get some help from the teacher. 5. I prefer to hear about new ideas sometimes. 6. I prefer to have some time i n class just for fooling around. 7. I prefer the teacher to book some of my class time. : Statements of low association with group-3. 69. I prefer other kids to help me find the answers, 68. I prefer not to talk about my ideas with others, 67. I prefer the teacher to book a l l my daily a c t i v i t i e s . 66. I prefer the teacher to t e l l me how to do a project, 65. I prefer to decide myself i f my work i s OK or not. 6k, I prefer to work without help from the teacher. 63. I prefer the teacher to t e l l me what topics to work on. 3. Q-Sort-3: Actual Behavior i n Acceptance of Social Responsibility. Group-1 - 81 -Rank Statements highly associated with group-1. 1. It's OK to l i e to get what you want. 2. I f I break something, I hide i t . 3. I shouldn't have to pay for something I break i f i t isn't mine. 4. I f I can't win a game I won't play. 5. It's OK to break a. promise to someone; they probably won't care, 6. I f I don't win a game I get mad. 7. I leave my mess; someone else w i l l clean i t up. 8. I only care about how I f e e l . : Statements of low association with group-1. 75. It's OK i f other kids believe different things than I do. 7b. I would ignore someone who t r i e d to bug me. 73, I wouldn't bug other kids; they would feel bad. 72. In games the most important thing i s to play your best. 71. I would admit I was wrong i f I really was. 70. I always ask when I want to borrow something. 69. I t e l l the teacher i f I break something. 68. I would help a small kid i n a fight with a bully. Group-2 Rank Statements highly associated with group-2. 1. I would fight with someone i f he asked for i t . 2. I would help a small kid i n a fight with a bully, 3. I f there i s someone around I ' l l ask them when I want to borrow something. k. If someone bugged me I would bug them back. - 82 -5. In groups I always share my stuff with the other kids, 6. I always take care of the school equipment I use, 7. In groups I always try to think of lots of good ideas, 8. I would admit I was wrong i f I rea l l y was. : Statements of low association with group-2. 75. It's OK to l i e to get what you want. 74. In groups I l e t others do most of the work. 73• I f I don't win a game I get mad. 72. In groups I s i t back and wait for others to give their ideas. 71. I f I break something, I hide i t . 70. I would fight with anyone i f I thought I could beat them. 69. I would never fight with someone; i t wouldn't be right. 68, I would not help out a small kid who was i n a fight. 4. Q-Sort-4: Admired Behavior i n Acceptance of Social Responsibility. Group-1 Rank Statements highly associated with group-1. 1. I only care about how I f e e l . 2. It's OK to l i e to get what you want. 3. I f I don't win a game I get mad. 4. I leave my mess, someone else w i l l clean i t up. 5. I f I can't win a game I won't play. 6. I take what I need without asking. 7. I f I break something, I hide i t . 8. I would bug other kids just for fun. - 83 -: Statements of low association with group-1. 75. It's OK i f other kids believe different things than I do. 74. I always try to think about the feelings of other people. 73« In games the most important thing i s to play your best. 72. I always clean up my mess, 71. I am always honest with my friends. 70, I always ask when I want to borrow something. 69. I obey a l l the class rules. 68. I f I break something that isn't mine, I always try to get i t fixed. Group-2 Rank Statements highly associated with group-2, 1. I obey a l l the class rules. 2. I would never fight with someone; i t wouldn't be right. 3. When I find something broken, I t e l l the teacher i f I remember. 4. It's OK to break a promise to someone; they probably won't care. 5. I always ask when I want to borrow something. 6. I shouldn't have to pay for something I break i f i t isn't mine. 7. I f I can't win a game I won't play. 8. It's OK to l i e to get what you want. • Statements of low association with group-2. 75. In groups I sometimes fool around and goof off, 74. In groups I fool around and goof off a l o t . 73. I would y e l l i n class i f I had to. 72. I f someone bugged me I would bug them right back. - 8k -71. I would help a small kid i n a fight with a bully. 70. I would bug other kids just for fun. 69. I clean up my mess i f I feel l i k e i t . 68. I do what I feel l i k e i n class. - 85 -APPENDIX III Q-SORT GROUPS AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 1. Q-Sort-1: Actual Behavior: Independent Patterns of Work Group Members Age year, month Sex Grade S #E §S • Cognitive . .Style.. Group Group -1 Members 402 9, 5 M 4 2 1 403 9, 0 F 4 2 1 407 9,11 F 4 2 2 * 411 9, k M 4 2 3 505* 10, ? F 5 3 2 506* 9,11 M 5 1 2 512 10, 3 F 5 2 2 513* 10, 1 F 5 2 3 517* 10, 7 F 5 2 3 601* 11, 0 F 6 1 2 609 11, 9 M 6 2 1 611 11, 9 M 6 2 2 612* 10,10 F 6 1 1 614 11, 4 M 6 2 1 701* 12, 0 F 7 1 2 707 12, 8 F 7 3 1 708 11, 8 F 7 1 3 709* 12, 0 M 7 2 3 711 12, 4 M 7 2 1 712 12, 6 F 7 2 1 715* 12,11 F 7 2 3 - 8 6 -Group Members Age year, month Sex Grade S »E »S « Cognitive Style Group Group-2 Members 404 9 , 3 F 4 6 3 5 0 2 1 0 , 4 F 5 2 3 5 0 4 1 0 , 5 F 5 2 2 5 1 1 9 , 9 F 5 2 1 6 0 3 1 1 , 5 M 6 2 1 6 0 4 . 1 1 , 1 F 6 1 1 6 1 3 1 1 , 0 F 6 2 2 7 0 6 1 2 , 3 M 7 2 2 7 1 0 1 2 , 6 M 7 8 1 7 1 4 1 1 , 1 1 F 7 2 1 Group-3 Members 4 0 9 9 , l F 4 2 2 5 0 8 9 , 9 M 5 1 2 7 0 5 1 1 , 1 M 7 2 1 ^Learners also found i n Group - 1 , Q-Sort - 2 . - 8? -2. Q-Sort-2: Preferred Behavior: Independent Patterns of Work Group Members Age year, month Sex Grade S «E «S a Cognitive Style Group Group 1 Members 401 9, 0 F 4 1 3 406 9, 7 F 4 2 3 408 9, 0 M 4 2 3 411* 9, 4 M 4 2 3 501 10, 5 M 5 1 1 505* 10, 7 F 5 3 2 506* 9,11 M 5 1 2 508 9, 9 . M 5 1 2 509 10, 4 F 5 2 1 513* 10, 1 F 5 2 3 514 9,11 F 5 8 1 517* 10, 7 F 5 2 3 601 11, 0 F 6 1 2 606 11, 4 M 6 3 l 60? 11, 0 F 6 2 3 612* 10,10 F 6 1 1 613 11, 0 F 6 2 2 701* 12, 0 F 7 1 2 709* 12, 0 M 7 2 3 710 12, 6 M 7 8 1 715* 12,11 F 7 2 3 1 - 8 8 -Group Members Age year* month Sex Grade S oE oS 0 Cognitive Style Group Group-2 Members 502 10, 4 F 5 2 3 504 10, 5 F 5 2 2 515 10, 8 M 5 2 3 605 12, 0 M 6 1 2 609 11, 9 M 6 2 2 702 12, 1 M 7 2 2 712 12, 6 F 7 2 1 714 11,11 F 7 2 1 Group-3 Members 409 9, 1 F 2 2 :. 503 10, 5 M 5 1 3 511 9, 9 F 5 2 1 512 10, 3 F 5 2 2 711 12, 4 M 1 7 2 1 ^Learners also found i n Group-1, Q-Sort-1. - 8 9 -3 . Q-Sort - 3 : Actual Behavior i n Acceptance of Social Responsibility. Group Members Age year, month Sex Grade S .E .S 0 Cognitive Style Group Group-1 Members 4 0 3 9 , 0 F 4 1 3 404* 9 , 3 F 4 6 3 4 0 7 9 , 1 1 F 4 2 2 4 0 9 * 9 , 1 F 4 2 2 411* 9 , 4 M 4 2 3 5 0 5 * 1 0 , 7 F 5 3 2 5 0 6 * 9 , 1 1 M 5 1 2 5 0 8 9 , 9 M 5 l 2 5 0 9 * 1 0 , 4 F 5 2 1 5 1 1 9 , 9 F 5 2 1 5 1 7 * 1 0 , 7 F 5 2 3 6 0 3 * 1 1 , 5 M 6 2 1 6 0 4 * 1 1 , 1 F 6 1 1 6 1 2 * 1 0 , 1 0 F 6 1 1 6 1 3 1 1 , 0 F 6 2 2 7 0 1 1 2 , 0 F 7 1 2 7 0 3 1 1 , 1 0 M 7 1 1 7 0 7 1 2 , 8 F 7 3 1 708* 1 1 , 8 F 7 1 3 7 0 9 * 1 2 , 0 M 7 2 3 7 1 0 * 1 2 , 6 M 7 8 1 7 1 1 * 1 2 , 4 M 7 2 l 7 1 2 1 2 , 6 F 7 2 l 7 1 3 * 1 2 , 6 F 7 1 3 7 1 4 * 1 1 , 1 1 F 7 2 1 7 1 5 1 2 , 1 1 F 7 2 3 - 90 -Group Members Age year, month Sex Grade S «E >S • Cognitive Style Group Group-2 Members 515 10, 8 M 5 2 3 ?02 12, 1 M 7 2 2 Group-3 Members 408 9, 0 M 4 2 3 706 12, 3 M 7 2 2 Group-4 Members 512 10, 3 F 5 2 2 608 l l i 9 M 6 5 2 609 11. 9 M 6 2 2 611 11, 9 M 6 2 2 614 11, 4 M 6 2 1 706 12, 3 M 7 2 2 ^Learners also found i n group-1, Q-Sort-4. - 9 1 -4 . Q-Sort - 4 . Admired Behavior i n Acceptance of Social Responsibility, Group Members Age year, month Sex Grade S oE«S0 Cognitive Style Group Group-1 Members 404* 9 , 3 F 4 6 3 4 0 9 * 9 , 1 F 4 2 2 411* 9 , 4 M 4 2 3 5 0 4 1 0 , 5 F 5 2 2 5 0 5 * 1 0 , 7 F 5 3 2 5 0 6 * 9 , 1 1 M 5 1 2 5 0 9 * 1 0 , 4 F 5 2 1 5 1 2 1 0 , 3 F 5 2 2 5 1 7 * 1 0 , 7 F 5 2 3 6 0 3 * 1 1 , 5 M 6 2 1 6 0 4 * 1 1 , 1 F 6 1 1 6 0 5 1 2 , 0 M 6 1 2 6 0 6 1 1 , 4 M 6 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 , 9 M 6 2 2 6 1 2 * 1 0 , 1 0 F 6 1 1 7 0 8 * 1 1 , 8 F 7 1 3 ? 0 9 * 1 2 , 0 M 7 2 3 7 1 0 * 1 2 , 6 M 7 8 l 7 1 1 * 1 2 , 4 M 7 2 1 7 1 3 * 1 2 , 6 F 7 1 3 7 1 4 * 1 1 , 1 1 F 7 2 l Group-2 Members 6 0 7 1 1 , 0 F 6 2 3 6 0 9 11, 9 M 6 2 2 6 1 3 1 1 , 0 F 6 2 2 7 0 5 1 1 , 1 M 7 2 1 *Learners also found i n group - 1 , Q-Sort - 3 . - 92 -APPENDIX IV nnONTTTVE STYLE GROUPS AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Cognitive Style Group-1 Members a Age year, month Sex Grade S .E .S > 7 1 2 1 2 , 6 F 7 2 6 1 0 1 0 , 4 F 6 2 5 1 6 9 , 9 M 5 2 / b 6 l 4 1 1 , 4 M 6 2 1 7 1 1 1 2 , 4 M 7 2 \ 7 1 4 1 1 , 1 1 F 7 2 7 0 5 1 1 , 1 M 7 2 5 1 1 9 , 9 F 5 2 5 0 9 1 0 , 4 F 5 2 6 0 3 1 1 , 5 M 6 2 / 5 0 1 1 0 , 5 M 5 1 1 7 0 7 1 2 , 8 F 7 3 \ 7 1 0 1 2 , 6 M 7 8 6 0 4 1 1 , 1 F 6 1 6 0 6 1 1 , 4 M 6 3 6 1 2 1 0 , 1 0 F 6 1 7 0 3 1 1 , 1 0 M 7 l 402 9 , 5 M 4 2 5 1 4 9 , 1 1 F 5 8 Group members are i n order by H.F.T. score from most f i e l d independent to least f i e l d independent. '(' indicates members with identical H.F.T. scores. - 93 -Cognitive Style Group-2 Members Age Sex Grade S «E .S • 602 11, 0 M 6 3 706 12, 3 M 7 2 605 12, 0 M 6 1 611 11, 9 M 6 2 506 9,11 M 5 1 409 9, 1 F 4 2 701 12, 0 F 7 1 609 11, 9 M 6 2 508 9, 9 M 5 1 407 9,11 F 4 2 601 11, 0 F 6 1 507 10, 0 F 5 2 / 504 10, 5 F 5 2 j 608 11, 9 M 6 5 \ 613 11, 0 F 6 2 704 12, 2 M 7 5 505 10, 7 F 5 3 512 10, 3 F 5 2 702 12, 1 M 7 2 - 94 -Cognitive Style Group-3 Members Age Sex Grade S .E .S 0 709 12, 0 M 7 2 408 9, 0 M 4 2 403 9, 0 F 4 1 517 10, 7 F 5 2 503 10, 5 M 5 1 411 9, 4 M 4 2 502 10, 4 F 5 2 607 11, 4 M 6 3 515 10, 8 M 5 2 715 12,11 F 7 2 513 10, 1 F 5 2 708 11, 8 F 7 1 401 9, 0 F 4 1 410 9, 9 F 4 2 404 9, 3 F 4 6 713 12, 6 F 7 1 510 10, 0 M 5 1 405 10, 2 M 4 2 406 9, 7 F 4 2 - 9 5 -APPENDIX V SCALE VALUES OF PICTURES IN PAIRED CHOICE, BY COGNITIVE STYLE GROUP Communi cation Cognitive Style Scale Values of Pictures Mode Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 To: Feeling 1 2 . 7 3 1 . 7 7 2 . 2 5 1 . 9 3 1 . 2 2 1 . 9 3 2 2 . 7 8 1 . 9 6 2 . 3 2 1 . 5 7 1 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 3 2 . 6 6 1 . 9 1 2 . 2 1 1 . 7 2 1 . 3 1 2 . 0 3 To: Experience 1 2 . 8 6 2 . 0 3 1 . 6 9 2 . 1 9 1 . 6 0 1 . 4 7 2 2 . 6 7 2 . 1 6 1.81 1 . 7 7 1.41 1 . 9 2 3 2 . 5 8 1 . 8 9 2 . 0 1 1 . 9 2 1 . 3 8 2 . 0 5 From: Feeling 1 2 . 5 2 1 . 8 9 1 . 9 8 2 . 2 9 1 . 2 6 1 . 8 8 2 2.80 1 . 8 8 1 . 9 2 1 . 9 4 1.42 1 . 8 3 3 2 . 7 8 1 . 8 2 2.04 1 . 8 6 1 . 1 6 2 . 1 7 From: Ex- 1 3 . 3 2 1 . 9 5 1 . 7 7 2 . 5 1 1 . 2 7 1 . 0 2 perience 2 2 . 7 4 1 . 8 9 1 . 9 0 2 , 2 0 1.28 1.82 3 4 . 0 5 1 . 8 9 1.40 1 . 6 2 0 . 6 2 7 2 . 2 6 - 96 -APPENDIX VI: Semantic Differential: Attitude Toward Schooling. 1. The teacher's role i n the classroom. 2. The program of learning. 3. The social structure of the classroom. 97-In t h i s game we would l i k e t o f i n d out what you t h i n k about your s c h o o l and the t h i n g s you do here. On the f i r s t page i s a game t o f i n d out how you f e e l about what the t e a c h e r does i n s c h o o l . There a r e p a i r s o f words s e p a r a t e d by seven spaces. F o r example: Wise F o o l i s h I f you t h i n k t h a t what the t e a c h e r does i n c l a s s i s "Wise" o r " F o o l i s h " , w r i t e a (\A i n box 1 or box 7. eg: 1 Wise ^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 F o o l i s h 1 Wise 2 OR 3 4 5 6 7 {/ F o o l i s h I f you t h i n k t h a t "Wise" o r " F o o l i s h " i s q u i t e a b i t l i k e what the t e a c h e r does, w r i t e a i n box 2 o r box 6. 1 Wise 3 4 5 6 7 F o o l i s h < 1>R Wise s/ F o o l i s h I f ycu t h i n k t h a t "Wise" or " F o o l i s h " i s a l i t t l e b i t l i k e what the t e a c h e r does, w r i t e a («/) i n box 3 o r box 5. 1 ! 2 ! M 4 I 5 I 6 i 7 F o o l i s h  Wise 2 3 4 5 6 1 7 i 1 Wise 2 3 OR 4 98-• ^ 5 6 7 F o o l i s h I f you are not sure, or don't know, write a (v) i n box 4. eg: 1 Wise 2 3 4 5 6 7 F o o l i s h On the t h i r d page of t h i s game, you w i l l do the same thing except you w i l l be checking how you f e e l about the a c t i v i t i e s and things you do i n school. On the fourth page of t h i s game, you w i l l do the same thing, except t h i s time you w i l l be checking (v/J what you think i t i s l i k e i n t h i s classroom. Note: Those adjective pairs marked with an asterisk* were those used i n the data analyses. How you f e e l about what the t e a c h e r does. P l a c e a check mark (>/) i n the box t h a t b e s t d e s c r i b e s how you f e e l about what the t e a c h e r does. A lot like what the teacher does *-* Quite a bit like what the teacher ^ does A little bit like what the teacher does Don't know or Not sure A little bit like what the teacher does 1 Quite a bit like ON what the teacher does A lot like what ^ Ithe teacher does | GOOD BAD SUCCESSFUL UNSUCCESSFUL IMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT HONEST DISHONEST POSITIVE NEGATIVE STRICT EASY WISE FOOLISH USEFUL USELESS FAIR UNFAIR CALM UPSET-STRONG WEAK HELPFUL UNHELPFUL SKILLFUL ! 1 * CLUMSY CLEAR - CONFUSING INTERESTING ! BORING TRUSTING SUSPICIOUS FRIENDLY UNFRIENDLY FRESH STALE SHARP DULL RELAXED i i TENSE - 1 00 -How you f e e l about the a c t i v i t i e s you do i n s c h o o l . P l a c e a («/) i n the box t h a t b e s t d e s c r i b e s how you f e e l about the t h i n g s and a c t i v i t i e s you do i n s c h o o l CD o CD rrt •H Xi rH JJ H -P CU CO •H M CD £ i •H •H rH -P fO •H -P > CD O •H •P rH -P •H O ct! O to -P •H l"H P O o Le P H P -H Xi cl) rH •P -P -H •rl > •H •P O fd o ,(D LC P H GOOD PLEASANT SUCCESSFUL WISE IMPORTANT TRUE POSITIVE USEFUL FULL FRESH CLEAR HELPFUL INTERESTING STRONG CALM SMART SKILLFUL ALERT U O o c O D -P •H ,Q CD rH -P -P •H i •H P o o CD H ix: P to (L) 0) •H CD AS 0 •H CO CD rH CD x: •H -p H -P •P •H •H CD CO ja > A; CD •H •H •H fO •P rH P O •H cu rd -P > -p 0 0 •H •H CD rH P < U O +J H - L -STRICT POPULAR BAD UNPLEASANT FAILURE FOOLISH UN IMPORT ANr FALSE NEGATIVE USELESS EMPTY STALE CONFUSING UNHELPFUL BORING WEAK UPSET DUMB CLUMSY LAZ/ EASY j UNPOPULAR What t h i s c l a s s r o o m i s l i k e . P l a c e a (-/) i n t h e box t h a t b e s t d e s c r i b e s what i t i s l i k e i n t h i s c l a s s r o o m . A lot like the M way it is 2 -P •H XI fO <D 4-1 •H a like the way it is A little bit like the way it is Not sure or Don't know ** A little bit 5 >i rd CD Xi P in CU -H •H P r-l -H 6 4-> •rH X) CtJ CD 4-> •rH O like the way it is A lot like the , way it is GOOD BAD FRIENDLY UNFRIENDLY PLEASANT UNPLEASANT POSITIVE NEGATIVE HONEST DISHONEST FAIR — ^ UNFAIR STRICT EASY TENSE RELAXED CALM UPSET HELPFUL UNHELPFUL USEFUL USELESS CLEAR CONFUSING HAPPY UNHAPPY COOPERATIVE COMPETITIVE SUCCESSFUL FAILURE SKILLFUL CLUMSY - • TRUSTING SUSPICIOUS ACCEPTING ! REJECTING CARING j i UNCARING - 102 -APPENDIX VII [ Semantic Differential: Attitude Toward Self. - 1 0 3 -In t h i s game we are going to f i n d out how you f e e l about yo u r s e l f , and how you think others f e e l about you. On the f i r s t page i s a game to f i n d out how you f e e l about y o u r s e l f . There are pa i r s of words separated by seven spaces. For example: Strong Weak If you f e e l that "Strong" or "Weak" i s a l o t l i k e you, write a check mark (>/) i n the box c l o s e s t to "Strong" or "Weak", eg: 1 Strong ^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 Weak 1 Strong 2 OR 3 4 5 6 7 ^ Weak If you f e e l "Strong" or "Weak" i s quite a b i t l i k e you, write a check i n the next c l o s e s t box (box 2 or box 6). 1 Strcnq 2 3 4 5 6 7 VJeak 1 Strong 3 OR 4 6 y 7 Weak - 104 -I f you f e e l " S trong" o r "Weak" i s a l i t t l e b i t l i k e you, w r i t e a check (vO i n box 3 o r box 5. eg: 1 Strong 2 3 V 4 5 6 7 Weak 1 S t r o n g 2 3 OR 4 5 V 6 7 Weak I f you don't know o r a r e n ' t sure, w r i t e a check (\/) i n box 4. eq: S t r o n g Weak Note: Put o n l y one (/) f o r each p a i r o f words Put a check (v*0 i n the f i r s t box you t h i n k about Do not go back over your answers. On the f o u r t h page you w i l l dc the - same t h i n g except you w i l l be c h e c k i n g {\A "How you t h i n k o t h e r s f e e l about you". Note: Those adjective pairs'marked with an asterisk* were those used i n the data analyses. ' How I f e e l about m y s e l f . P l a c e a check mark (/) i n the box t h a t b e s t d e s c r i b e s how you f e e l about y o u r s e l f . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -A lot like me Quite a bit like me A little bit like me Don't know; Not sure A little bit like me Quite a bit like me A lot like me GOOD BAD ATTRACTIVE • UGLY CLEAN DIRTY .USEFUL USELESS KIND CRUEL PLEASANT UNPLEASANT HAPPY SAD NICE AWFUL HONEST DISHONEST FAIR UNFAIR GENEROUS SELFISH SMART DUMB STRONG WEAK SKILLFULL 1 CLUMSY ALERT -i 1 ! LAZY POPULAR 1 UNPOPULAR SUCCESSFUL i i FAILURE POSITIVE j i NEGATIVE IMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT j POLITE i . i . j , RtiDZ How you t h i n k o t h e r s f e e l about you. P l a c e a check mark (y/) i n the box t h a t b e s t d e s c r i b e s how you t h i n k o t h e r s f e e l about you. A lot like H me 2 4-» X fO O g QJ 4J CD •H M 3 -H O H A little bit like me 00 Don't know; Not sure A little bit like me Quite a bit like me °^ 7 QJ •H i H -P o r-t QJ < g GOOD B A D A T T R A C T I V E U G L Y C L E A N D I R T Y U S E F U L U S E L E S S K I N D - C R U E L P L E A S A N T U N P L E A S A N T H A P P Y S A D N I C E AWFUL-H O N E S T D I S H O N E S T F A I R U N F A I R G E N E R O U S S E L F I S H S M A R T DUMB S T R O N G WEAK S K I L L F U L L j C L U M S Y A L E P T ! L A Z Y P O P U L A R I U N P O P U L A R S U C C E S S F U L F A I L U R E P O S I T I V E I : £ G A T I V E I M P O R T A N T i U N I M P O R T A N T J ! P O L I T E j 1 j j i 1. J i RUDE - 10? -APPENDIX VIII: Teacher Questionnaire - 108 -Irwin Park Evaluation Study; Teacher Questionnaire Teacher evaluation of degree of achievement by students of (a) Independent patterns of work (t>) Social Responsibility For each of the 9 characteristics please rate each student on the following scale: Degree to which student exhibits these characteristics or s k i l l s : rH .c >> ^ c >> cO >> bO rH CO CO r*H »C CO rH «r| -P SH bO bQ -p -P bo -P *» X CO CO Xi CO X! cO x bO-P C rt (H b0 W JH bO >> bQ •H -P cO CO CO •H CQ r-i CO •H -P j-t i—1 CO X! > > > rH o CO CQ X> -P cO CQ rH CO CQ 55 > J 1 U 1 1 1 !• >» -p en CQ •p CO rt 3 P 6 CO -P O bD •H > i-i c cO •P CO o >, CO rt CO Pi U -p e ve Ui > < So The rating i s to be carried out once every two weeks, based on the previous two weeks behavior. It i s important to try and maintain a consistant standard from week to week. It i s more important to maintain a consistant standard during each individual rating session, as i t i s the particular rank of a student on each of the two objectives (independence and Social Responsibility) that i s most useful i n checking the Q sorts used to measure degree of achievement of these objectives, as well as providing formative data. The following are guidelines to assist i n establishing a con-sistant set of standards for rating. - 1 0 9 -I. Independent Patterns of Work: ( 1 ) Independence i n Thought: inclined to follow his own ideas and organization rather than the structuring of others (2) Independence i n Action: able to choose, plan and organize his own learning a c t i v i t i e s : able to direct himself i n carrying out and completing learning ac t i v i t i e s (minimum adult supervision) able to evaluate his results (products) himself (3) Independence i n Work (Possession of s k i l l required for independent study) eg : concentration locate and acquire information : functioning knowledge of: school resources and equipment : community resources : recognizes and develops own special talents : imposes his own structure : persistant : reacts positively to new experience and challenge : logical - problem solving strategy - s c i e n t i f i c method - generalizes; applies knowledge : flexible - approaches ideas and problems from a number of perspectives. - adaptable to changing situations (4) Originality: source of ideas II Social Responsibility (5) Works constructively i n groups: : listens to what others say : t r i e s to think of ideas - 110 -does f a i r share of the work starts to work without wasting time : shares resources Accepts responsibility for the physical classroom environment -: cleans up own mess : puts equipment back • cleans up the mess trie s to take care of school equipment : informs teacher of damaged, equipment Demonstrates social behavior acceptable and appropriate to the classroom (or other school situation) : acceptance and compliance with social conventions : minimal occurance of inappropriate behavior (as defined by class-school rules) Tolerant of other's points of view Respect for other's rights and property Sense of Justice/Sportsmanship : P.E. and other games : behavior toward peers - - I l l -- Rating Independance i n Thought 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Student Number At Every Opportunity Very Often Often Average Sometimes Rarely Never 501 • 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 • 511 512 i 513 514 515 516 517 401 402 403 1 404 1 1 405 i l 406 1 - j i — . j 40? 1 i 408 t 1 ! I 409 » 1 410 i 411 412 I 413 i i 414 1 1 i ! 1 1 1 1 i 1 " -1 1 112 Independance i n A c t i o n Student Number 501 502 503 504 505 506 50? 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 516 51? 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 Rating 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 At Every Opportunity Very Often Often Average Sometimes Rarely Never 1 ( 1 i 1 1 1 ~ ! 1 1 1 I ^ 1 f I 1 1 - ' i -I—: - 1 j — I • • 1 1 1. f —: 1 r 1 i 1 1~ ~1 - i i ; 3 -'independance i n Work Student Number 5 0 1 5 0 2 5 0 3 5 0 4 5 0 5 5 0 6 5 0 7 5 0 8 5 0 9 5 1 0 5 1 1 5 1 2 5 1 3 5 1 4 5 1 5 5 1 6 5 1 7 401 402 403 404 4 0 5 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 R a t i n g 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 At Every Opportunity Very Often Often Average Sometimes Rarely Never • ! r - l 1 t t j 1 1. 1 1 1 ' . l i t . p - . p - P - p - . p - p r - p - $r p- p- p- -p- 4? -P-1—> !-• h-" t—• O O O O O O O O O At Every Opp o r t u n i t y Rating • Very Often Rating • i i 1 Often ui Rating Average *. Rating ! i ! * Sometimes Rating ..a— . R a r e l y to Rating i ! 1 i 1 > I 1 Never ! Rating 3 pi H Ul u i . a 3 C f (0 4 M H ' t - ' l - ' l - ' l - ' l - ' t - ' O O O O © O O O O - O 0 \ V J \ p t j M H O v O 00 0 \ U \ p - W M H " -115 -Works C o n s t r u c t i v e l y i n Groups Student Number 5 0 1 5 0 2 5 0 3 5 0 4 5 0 5 5 0 6 5 0 7 5 0 8 5 0 9 5 1 0 5 1 1 5 1 2 5 1 3 5 1 4 5 1 5 5 1 6 5 1 ? 401 402 4 0 3 404 405 406 40? 408 409 410 411 412 4 1 3 414 Rating 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 At Every Opportunity 1  Very Often Often Average Sometimes Rarely Never .-! _ | i i I 1 i 1 1 ' t 1 I j 1 1 1 1 I • ' ! 1 ! 1 1 t ! I - ' 116 V Accepts R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the P h y s i c a l Classroom Environment Student Number 5 0 1 5 0 2 5 0 3 5 0 4 5 0 5 5 0 6 5 0 7 5 0 8 5 0 9 5 1 0 5 1 1 5 1 2 5 1 3 5 1 4 5 1 5 5 1 6 5 1 7 401 402 4 0 3 404 405 406 40? 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 - Rating 7 6 5 4 , 3 2 1 At Every Opportunity Very Often Often Average Sometimes Rarely Never 1 r 1 \ \ i i f 1 1 1 . . . 1 • « 1 1 1 1 -- 117 -V R a t i n g . D e m o n s t r a t e s A c c e p t a b l e a n d 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A p p r o p r i a t e S o c i a l B e h a v i o r Student Number At Every Opportunity Very Often Often Average Sometimes Rarely Never 5 0 1 5 0 2 5 0 3 5 0 4 505 5 0 6 5 0 ? 5 0 8 5 0 9 5 1 0 5 1 1 5 1 2 5 1 3 5 1 4 5 1 5 5 1 6 5 1 ? 401 402 4 0 3 404 405 1 406 1 1 407 1 1 408 1 409 ———— 410 411 ! 412 — 413 1 414 1 1 -v I 1 ! — 1 1 V Tolerance/Respect f o r Others Student Number 501 502 503 504 505 506 50? 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 401 402 403 404 k05 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 R a t i n g 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 At'Every Opportunity Very Often Often Average Sometimes Rarely Never — j 1 1 I i i 1 1 1 1 _ I i 1 t ! I — 1 > | • ! r -— —— i —f r * 1 P—I t t -119 -Sense of J u s t i c e / S p o r t s m a n s h i p Student Number 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 5oe 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 401 402 403 404 405 406 40? 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 R a t i n g • H >1 C U D <U - P > u o CU • P CU < o c CU -p o u CU > a CP -p M-1 o CU rd u CU > < CO CU E • H 4-1 CD E O CO CU 1-1 r0 U CU > CU 2 f = 1 f t — - 120 -APPENDIX IX: Dimensions of Schooling Instrument Scoring System for Dimensions of Schooling Instrument. DIMENSIONS OF SCHOOLING School . — • D a t e Grade(s) The purpose of this questionnaire i s to obtain a description of your class on a variety of dimensions. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ITEMS IN TERMS OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN YOUR SCHOOL SITUATION. DO NOT RESPOND IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD HAPPEN. Each page contains several categories describing situations relating to one dimension of schooling. On each page please read a l l the categories before responding to that dimension. For each dimension, rank the categories in terms of how often they occur in your class. Assign the highest rank (l) to the category which occurs most often or to the most students. Assign the second highest rank (2) to the category which happens the next most often .... and so on down to the lowest ranked category. Do not rank categories which do not apply to your situation or where a ranking system i s i nappropriate, Rank as many or as few of the categories as you feel are appropriate for describing your class situation. Items 1-6 refer to the general school situation} items 7-30 should refer to the four main subject areas specified. Please respond only to subject areas which you teach. If you teach a subject area not listed, please write i t under OTHER and respond in that column. ( , ,Class M in this questionnaire i s defined as the group of students assigned to you at this time.) (c) Educational Evaluation Program The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Example Item A. Students go to the school library Individually whenever they wish. 3 B. Students go to the school library individually with the permission of 2 their teachers. C. Students go to the school library in groups with the supervision of a 1 teacher or librarian. D, Students go to the school library mainly outside regular school hours. The response in the example describes a situation In which the most frequently occurring category i s *C* j the second most frequently occurring category is *B*; the third most frequently occurring category is 'A* j and *D' simply does not occur. Remember you may rank as few or as many of the categories as are appropriate for your situation. Items 7-30 are concerned with subject matter areas. Please respond as before for each of the subject areas that you teach. That is, rank the categories in terms of how often they apply to your situation. This will require a column of ranks for each subject that you teach. If you teach a subject which is not listed, respond in the column headed 'other*. Please specify the subject. If you use 'integrated subjects* respond in the column headed *other* (and specify •integrated subjects* in the place provided). ASSIGNMENT OF STUDENTS TO TEACHERS. This section is concerned with who makes the decisions about student assignment to teachers. A. Glass assignments are decided upon by students. B. Class assignments are decided upon by parents. G. Class assignments are decided upon by teachers. D. Class assignments are decided upon by principal or vice principal. TIME SCHEDULING. This section is concerned with the amount of time which is blocked into scheduled activities. A. Fully Unscheduled: Activities (e.g. math or other subjects, outdoor play, work with art materials, etc.) are not scheduled but occur as students' and/or teachers' interests dictate. B. Mostly Unscheduledi Activities are not scheduled for most of the day, but there are some activities (no more than l/k of the day) that are held at specific times (e.g. a French lesson given by a teacher who comes from outside the school or reading, etc.) C. Scheduled and Unscheduledi Approximately 1/2 the day is un-scheduled with the other l/2 blocked into scheduled activities. D. Mostly scheduled: Activities are scheduled for most of the day (about 3A) but the rest of the time is left unscheduled so that activities occur as students' and teachers' interests dictate. E. Fully scheduled: The full day is organized into activities that occur according to some prearranged time-table. FREE TIME. This section is concerned with the amount of time during which students are free to pursue their own interests. This is not the same as independent study time where students work on projects or assignments in a particular subject area. A. The entire day is available for students to pursue their own interests (free time). B. At least half the day is available as free time* G. One - two hours of free time are available each day. D. Less than one hour of free time ls available each day. E. There is no free time available. RULE-MAKING. This section is concerned with determining who makes the rules which govern school behaviour. A. Rules for student conduct are made by the administrative staff (principal, vice principal). B. Rules for student conduct are made by the teachers, G. Rules for student conduct are made by the parents. D. Rules for student conduct are made by the students. RULE-ENFORCING. This section is concerned with determining who enforces the rules governing general school behaviour. A. Rules for student conduct are enforced by the administrative staff (principal, vice principal). B. Rules for student conduct are enforced by the teachers. C. Rules for student conduct are enforced by the parents. D, Rules for student conduct are enforced by the students, DEFINING GENERAL OBJECTIVES. This section is concerned with who specifies the general objectives, (aims, goals, philosophy, expected outcomes) of schooling* A. The objectives are defined by the administrative staff (i.e. the school board, central administration, principal), B. Objectives are defined by teachers. C. Objectives are defined by parents, D. Objectives are defined by students, E. Objectives are not defined. 7. STUDENTS" MOBILITY. This section is concerned with the amount of freedom which students have to move around the school on a regular basis. Science Math Social Studies Reading, Arts Other A. Students do not need the permission of the teacher to leave the classroom, but freely move in and out of the room (or area) to use the library, resource centre, etc. i • B. Students must ask the teacher's permission to move in and out of the classroom to use the library, resource centre, etc, but permission is usually given readily. G. Students move in and out of the classroom to use the library, resource centre, etc. only in special circumstances (i.e., with special permission) or as class groups. 8. DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALS. This section is concerned with the amount of personal involvement that students and teachers have in the development of materials for the classroom. A. There is little involvement of teachers and/or students in developing materials; i.e. most materials in use are ready-to-use "packages" (e.g. reading series, sets of math texts, computer-assisted instruction, etc.). B. There is some involvement of teachers and/or students in developing materials; i.e. most materials in use are things chosen by teachers, students, or others from a wide variety of sources in a ready-to-use form (e.g. books not in series, an abacus, a film etc.). C. There is a great deal of involvement of teachers and/or students in developing materials; i.e., most materials in use have been developed, created or adapted by students, teachers and others specifically for situations which arose in this classroom (e.g. collections of objects for use in working but math problems, books, tape recordings or films made by students or teachers, equipment built by parents, etc. SELECTION OF MATERIALS. This section i s concerned with the involvement students have i n selecting materials with which to work. A. Students choose for themselves from a l l the materials available and may bring i n materials from outside the classroom. B, Students chose from alternatives suggested by the teacher. C. Students are assigned materials prescribed for them individually. D. Student i s assigned materials prescribed to members of his subgroup of the class. Same materials for a l l students i n the same subgroup; different materials for each subgroup. E. Student l s assigned materials prescribed to a l l members of his class. (Same materials for a l l students i n the same class). 1 0 . FLEXIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENT. This section is concerned with who makes the decisions about the arrangement and the setting up of the learning area. A. The arrangement of furniture and equipment in the learning area is decided upon by the administrative staff and doesn't change frequently. B. The arrangement of furniture and equipment in the learning area is decided upon and changed by the teachers. G. The arrangement of furniture and equipment in the learning area is decided upon and changed by the students. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT, This section concerns the size of the area used by students during the school day. A. Study and other activities take place at the student's own desk or table. B, Study and other activities take place in a number of different places (centres) within the classroom area. G. Study and other activities take place in a number of different places (centres) within the school. D, Study and other activities take place on a fairly regular basis outside the schools the community and its institutions are incorporated into the learning environment, (e.g. a class is held in a museum or students go on a weekly nature walk or a few students and a teacher aide spend time walking around a shopping area and visiting a butcher, a baker, a shoemaker's shop. This does not refer to occasional outings or class trips). OTHER ADULT INVOLVEMENT* This section is concerned with the involvement of adults other than teachers in the classroom. A. All teaching is done by the regular classroom teacher and special subject teachers. B. Although most of the teaching i s done by the classroom and special teachers, occasionally there are visitors, parents or volunteers who have special knowledge of a topic, or who help In a practical way In the classroom (e.g. a student's mother who is a doctor may talk to a class about what doctors do, or a parent may help decorate the classroom for a party). C. Although much of the teaching is done by the classroom and special teachers, there are regularly involved parents, volunteers and frequent visitors who are welcome in the class-room and whose involvement ls considered an important part of the learning experience, (e.g. a parent spends an afternoon a week at the school working with the students in art or a university student comes regularly to tutor students in math). PEER GROUP ASSISTANCE. This section is concerned with the extent to which students work with other students on school-work. A. Students independently seek assistance in their schoolwork from peers or other students; this is a frequent occurrence in the class and is accepted and encouraged as a valid way of seeking solutions or of exploration. B, There is occasional student-to-student assistance on a somewhat formal teacher-initiated basis (e.g. the teacher assigns a good reader to help a poorer reader or arranges for a tutor). C, Assistance almost always comes from the teacher. Ik, MEDIA USAGE. This section concerns the use of media as teaching aids in instruction. A. Teachers and books are the primary media of instruction. B, Teachers and books are augmented by media which is used by the teacher (e.g. the teacher shows a film or plays a record for the class). G. Teachers and books are augmented by media which students have ready access to and use themselves (e.g. tape recorders or videotape equipment or records). \ TEACHER FOCUS. This section concerns the size of the student group addressed by the teaoher at one time. A. The teacher directs attention to the class as a whole. B. The teacher directs attention to sub-groups of the class. C. The teacher directs attention to Individual students. TEACHER ROLE. This section is concerned with the role the teacher plays in the student's contact with what is being learned. A. The teacher acts as a resource person to whom students come when seeking information and ideas. B. The teacher acts as a discussion leader on topics initiated by the students. G. The teacher acts as a discussion leader on topics of his/her choice. D, The teacher acts as a presenter of planned lessons. COOPERATIVE TEACHING, This section is concerned with the extent to which teachers plan and teach together. A, Teachers plan and teach independently of each other. B, Teachers discuss and plan work together "but teach independently. G, Teachers discuss, plan and work on special projects together but generally maintain independence in regular teaching. D, Teachers discuss, plan and work cooperatively so that they function as a coordinated unit. 18. STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN FORMULATING APPROACHES TO  LEARNING. This section i s concerned with the extent to which teachers help students arrive at approaches to learning and problem solving. A. Students formulate their own methods of learning and solving problems (e.g. a student studying the Arctic independently consults several people, looks in the card catalogue at the library, and writes to the government for information), B. Students choose from alternative methods suggested by the teacher for learning and solving problems (e.g. A student studying the Arctic asks the teacher for help. The teacher suggests two books, a film strip and writing to the government). G. Students are assigned methods by the teacher for learning and solving problems (e.g. a student studying the Arctic i s assigned the tasks of writing a letter to the government, reading two books, and viewing a films-trip). 19. STUDENT PAGING. This section ls concerned with the pace at which the student works. A. The student ia expected to work at a pace set for all members of the class. B. The student is expected to work at a pace set for the members of his subgroup of the class. G, The student works at a pace prescribed for him individually. D. The student sets his own pace. ATTENDANCE. This section is concerned with students' physical presence at class activities. A. Attendance at all activities of the class is not required (e.g. a math lesson is scheduled; a student is involved in another project and chooses not to attend the class). B. Attendance at more than half the activities of the class is not required (e.g. i t is required that a student attend a reading lesson, but he may choose not to be present for a social studies lesson). C. Attendance at less than half the activities of the class is not required. D, Attendance at all the activities of the class is required. INDEPENDENT STUDY TIME. This section concerns the amount of time available for independent study; students work by themselves on projects of their choice but in keeping with the wide range objectives of the subject area (e.g. during a geography unit on the Middle East, a student might use his independent study time to create a paper mache relief map of the Sinai Penninsula). A. Independent study time is available as the need arises. B. There are 1-3 hours of independent study time available weekly. G. There are l/2-l hours of independent study time available weekly. D . There is no independent study time available. 22. SUBGROUPING CRITERIA. This section i s concerned with how subgroups within the class are developed. w A. Students group themselves according to their own c r i t e r i a (e.g. interests, friendships, etc.; B. Students are grouped by the teacher on the basis of information about students' interests, aptitude, achievement, or social maturity. C. Students are grouped by the teacher on the basis of random assignment (p.g. alphabetically, by sex or by size). CO p. CD a 8 3 tr CD H SUBGROUPING STABILITY, This item is concerned with the establishment and change in the composition of subgroups within the class. A, Subgroups within the class are established for the duration of a specified period of time (e.g. for the school year or for a term). B, Subgroups within the class are established and/or reorganized when the teacher feels i t is necessary and/or desirable (e.g. for a new activity or when students' interests change). C, Subgroups within the class are established and/or reorganized when students feel i t is necessary and/or desirable (e.g. for a new activity or when students* interests change). AGE RANGE. This section is concerned with the range of age of students in one class. A. Students in the class are about the same age (except those who, at one time, have been either promoted or who have skipped a grade)} age is the primary criterion for assigning a student to a class. B, Students in the class are in a two or three year age range} there is a semi-graded system which will allow, to some extent, that individual differences in physical, social and intellectual maturity will be considered in assigning students to a class or grade. G. Students in the class vary in age by more than three years} there is a multiage system which allows students with a wide variety of quailficatl and ages to be in the same class. DEFINING INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES. This section is concerned with who specifies the objectives of schooling specific to each subject area. A. The objectives are defined by the administrative staff (school board, central administration, principal). B, Objectives are defined by teachers. C. Objectives are defined by parents. D. Objectives are defined by students. E. Objectives are not defined. PROMOTION TIMING. This section is concerned with when moves from grade to grade or from class to class occur (based on achievements or maturity). A. Promotion decisions are made at the end of the school year or term. B. Promotion decisions are made at the end of each unit of study. C. Promotion decisions are made whenever i t seems appropriate for the individual student. D. Promotion does not occur. Rather, students remain in a class unit or intact group for several years. EVALUATION FOCUS. This section is concerned with the size of the group being evaluated. A. Evaluation procedures are the same for a l l students in the school. B. Evaluation procedures are the same for all students in the class, but differ from class to class in the school. C. Evaluation procedures arethe same for each student within a subgroup of the class but differ from subgroup to subgroup. D. Evaluation procedures are different for each student in the class. TIMING OF EVALUATION. This section is concerned with the tlme(s) at which evaluation takes place. A. Evaluation takes place at a few specified intervals (e.g. the end of each term). B, Evaluation takes plaoe at more frequent intervals (e.g. monthly or weekly)• G. Evaluation takes place a l l the time (e.g. dally). STUDENT ROLE IN EVALUATION, This section is concerned with the degree to which students plan how their evaluation is to take place, i.e. developing procedures, collecting and analyzing data, making judgments, deciding when evaluation takes place, etc* A, Students have the responsibility for planning and implementing evaluation procedures. B. Teachers have the responsibility for planning and implementing evaluation procedures. G. The administration has responsibility for planning and implementing evaluation procedures. EVALUATION PROCEDURES. This section concerns with the types of tests and other evaluation instruments used in student evaluation. A. No formal tests are used; evaluation is based on work samples and anecdotal reports. B. Evaluation instruments used were developed in this classroom. C. Evaluation instruments used were developed within the school (by other teachers or in previous years). D. Standardized (commercial) instruments are used - 153 -DEPARTMENT OF MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION October 25, 1971 Scoring System for DOS (Dimensions of Schooling) Instrument 1. Option-weights t Order the options to each item from most open to most closed and weight them as follows: Assign the weight a (where a i s one less than the number of options) to the most open option, the weight a-1 to the second most open option, and so on. The most closed option receives a weight of 0. 2 . Rank-weights: Weight the ranks assigned by a respondent to the options of the item as follows: Rank Weight 3-option 4-option 5-option item Item item 1 8 18 35 2 2 3 k 3 1 2 3 k 1 2 5 1 3. Compute the basic score for the item by multiplying the weight for the rank of one by the weight for the option that was assigned the rank of one. k. When more than one option to an item has been ranked, adjust the basic score by adding the following amount to It. Adjustment • (rank-weight) x (option-weight of option receiving rank smaller than one - option-weight of option ranked one) 5 . Compute this adjustment for each additional option that was ranked and add each adjustment to the basic score. The result i s the score for the item. - 1 5 ^ -To ensure each item r e c e i v e s equal weight , d i v i d e the score obtained i n step 5 by the maximum p o s s i b l e score f o r the i tem. T h i s maximum depend on the number of opt ions an item has, as i s i n d i c a t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e . No. o f opt ions Maximum P o s s i b l e Score 3 16 4 54 5 140 Consider a couple of examples: E . G . 1 Option Rank (most) A (open) 2 B 1 (most ) C (closed) Basic Score = 8 x 1 = 8 Adjustment = 2 x (2 - 1) = 2 Adjusted Score « 8 + 2 = 10 E . G . 2 (most) A (open) B (most) C (closed) 2 Basic Score • 8 x 2 « 16 Adjustment = 2 x (0 - 2) = - 4 Adjusted Score * 16 - 4 = 12. - 155 -iscussion: For 3-option items, the proposed scoring procedure w i l l produce the following scores for each possible ranking of the options: Option Different Possible Rankings (open) A 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 B 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 C (closed) 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 Score: 16 14 12 12 11 8 10 6 9 7 0 2 4 4 Note that the basic score determines the general level. That i s , a l l rankings in which option A is ranked 1 have higher scores than rankings in which option B is ranked 1, etc. The adjustments differentiate among the possible rankings in which option A (or B or C) is ranked 1. The same general result holds for items with 4 or more options. However, i t i s obvious that the number of different possible rankings increases as the number of options increases. Therefore, the scoring scheme must be able to discriminate among more possible answers as the number of options increases. This accounts for the reason why the weight for the rank of one needs to be increased as the number of options increases. - 1 5 6 -APPENDIX X: Sample statements from Q-Sort 1 and Q-Sort 2 : independent patterns of work, Sample statements from Q-Sort 3 and Q-Sort 4: Acceptance of Social Responsibility. - 15? -Q,-Sort-ls Sample statements describing how the learner actually works in the open-area setting. Independent Behavior 1. I hardly ever ask the teacher for help. 2. In groups I usu-ally help the other kids. 3. I hardly ever have to be told to get on with my work, k. Even i f a job is really hard I stick with i t until I finish i t . 5. I work on hard puzzles or games whenever I get the chance. 6. I work to find the answers myself, Intermediate Behavior I sometimes ask the teacher for help. In groups I work with kids who will help me a bit. Sometimes I have to be told to get on with my work. If a job i s really hard, I usually give up and try something easier. Sometimes I work at hard puzzles or games. I work together with kids to find the answers, Non-independent Behavior I often ask the teacher for help. In groups I work with kids who will help me a lot. I often have to be told to get on with my work. If a job i s too hard I just give up and for-get about i t . I only work on easy puzzles or games I've done before. I try to work with kids who know the answers. - 158 -Q-Sort-2: Independent Behavior Sample statements describing how the learner would prefer to work i n the open-area setting. 1. I prefer to ask the teacher for help only i f I really have to. 2. I prefer to help other kids, 3. I prefer to be l e f t alone to get on with my work myself. k. I prefer not to give up i f the work i s hard. 5. I prefer to work on hard puzzles or games, 6. I prefer to find the answers by myself. Intermediate Behavior I prefer to ask the teacher for help. I prefer other kids to help me. Sometimes I prefer to be reminded of the work I have to do. I prefer to try something easier i f the work i s too hard. I prefer to work on puzzles or games that are not too hard. I prefer to work together with other kids to find the answers. Non-i ndependent Behavior I prefer to ask the teacher for help very often. I prefer to work with kids who help each other, I prefer the teacher to make sure I get on with my work. I prefer to give up i f the work i s too hard. I prefer to work on easy puzzles or games. I prefer other kids to help me find the answers. - 1 5 9 -Q-Sort-3: Sample statements describing how the learner actually behaves in the open-area setting. Socially Responsible Behavior Intermediate Behavior 1 . In groups I do In groups I do some a lot of the work, of the work. 2. In groups I a l -ways share my stuff with the other kids, 3. I t e l l the teacher i f I break something. k. I would ignore someone who tried to bug me. 5 . I am always honest with other people. 6. I obey a l l the class rules. In groups I only share my stuff with my friends. If I break something I t e l l the teacher i f I remember. If someone bugged me I would bug them back. I am always honest with my friends. I obey the class rules when I feel like i t . Socially Irresponsible Behavior In groups I let others do most of the work. In groups I get the stuff I need and do my own thing. If I break something I hide i t . If someone bugged me a lot I would let them have i t . It's OK to l i e to get what you want. I do what I feel like in class. Q-Sort-4: Cards from Q-Sort-3 were sorted using the criterion: How the person I admire most behaves in the open-area setting. - 160 -APPENDIX XI: Drawings depicting different methods of communication used i n the paired comparison of pictures instrument for measurement of the dependent variable: communication s k i l l s Ross' method of pairing. 2 P I C T U R E - 16k -- 165 -- 1 6 6 -- 16? -Balanced Orders for the Presentation of Stimuli (Ross, 193*0 N = 5 1 - 3 7 - 2 1 - 5 7 - 2 N = 12 1 - 2 2 - 4 1 - 5 4 - 6 9 - 10 9 - 7 5 - 3 7 - S 4 - 6 3 - 7 1 - 5 8 - 1 4 - 1 6 - i 3 - 7 2 - 8 4 - 6 4 - 3 3 - 2 4 - 3 2 - 8 9 - 1 3 - 7 5 - 2 4 - 5 5 - 2 5 - 6 5 - 6 2 - 8 6 - 11 1 - 3 6 - 7 4 - 7 4 —77 10 -- 1 7 - 10 2 - 4 1 - 4 3 - 8 3 - 8 6 - 5 3 - 9 5 - l 3 - 5 2 - 9 7 - 4 1 - 4 3 - 4 2 - 6 N = 9 N = 10 8 - 3 3 - 5 2 - 5 7 - 1 1 - 2 1 - 2 9 - 2 2 - 6 N = 6 4 - 5 9 - 3 1 0 - 4 1 - 6 11 -- 7 1 - 2 3 - 6 8 - 4 9 - 5 5 - 7 10 -- 8 6-4 2 - 7 7 - 5 8 - 6 4 - 8 9 - 1 5 - 1 N = 8 6 - 1 7 - 1 3 - 9 5 - 4 3 - 2 1 - 2 3 - 2 3 - 2 2 - 10 6 - 3 5 - 6 8 - 4 4 - 9 5-10 6 - 7 7 - 2 1 - 3 7 - 5 5 - 8 6 - 9 5 - 8 8 - 11 2 - 4 6 - 1 6 - 7 7 - 8 4 - 9 9 - 10 6 - 1 3 - 2 1 - 3 1 - 3 3 - 10 1 - 5 4 - 3 5 - 8 2 - 4 2 - 4 N - 11 4 - 6 5 - 2 6-7 9 - 5 1 0 - 6 1 - 2 3 - 7 1 - 4 1 - 3 8 - 6 9-7 11 • - 3 2 - 8 3 - 5 2 - 4 7 - 1 8 - 1 10 - 4 11 • - 9 2 - 6 8 - 6 4 - 3 4 - 3 9 - 5 10 - i 4 - 5 7 - 1 5 - 2 5 - 2 8 - 6 6 - 5 3 - 6 4 - 3 6 - 9 7-10 7 - 1 7 - 4 N = 7 5 - 2 7 - 8 8 - 9 3 - 2 8 - 3 1 - 2 7 - 8 1 - 4 1 - 4 4 - 11 9 - 2 7 - 3 1 - 4 3 - 5 3 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 11 6-4 3 - 5 2 - 6 2 - 6 6 - 9 1 - 6 5 - 1 2 - 6 9-77 1 0 - 8 7 - 8 5 - 7 3 - 2 8 - 1 8 - 1 9 - 1 i - 3 4 - 8 4 - 7 4 - 5 5 - 4 5 - 4 2 - 4 3 - 9 5 - 6 6 - 3 6 - 3 6 - 3 n - 5 2 - 10 7 - 2 10 - 6 11 - 1 8 - 9 6 - 7 Q 

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.831.1-0094145/manifest

Comment

Related Items