Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of goal specifications and instructor behaviour on information acquisition by adult learners Davison, Catherine Val 1972

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A2 D39.pdf [ 9.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101425.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101425-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101425-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101425-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101425-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101425-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101425-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101425-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101425.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF GOAL SPECIFICATIONS AND INSTRUCTOR BEHAVIOUR ON INFORMATION ACQUISITION BY ADULT LEARNERS by CATHERINE VAL DAVISON B.Sc, Mount Saint Vincent College, 1964 M.A., University of British Columbia, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in the Faculty of Education (Adult Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JUNE, 1972 In presenting this thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Depart-ment or by his representatives. It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Adult Education The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, B r i t i s h Columbia Date: June, 1972 ABSTRACT This study was designed to examine the effects of different styles of instructor influence and the use of goal statements on information acquisition among adult learners. While these two "external" variables were the primary foci of the investigation, selected variables "internal" to the learner were scrutinized as useful additional sources of potentially accounted for variance in gains on the learning measures. A laboratory design was used in order to exercise some degree of experimental control. The instructor's behaviour was controlled by train-ing an instructor-roleplayer whose verbal statements were classified by two observers using Flanders' method of interaction analysis. Learning materi-o l u o c m n f r n l -T orl <-P/~VT» o i l (rrr»imc \vxr V» oin -rvrr +-V» e\ I r v c f vi tr~ •*-<->•** T>vacon+i -f-V» r\ hnn'/' concepts on a videotape. Extent of information acquisition was measured by using a pre-test and two post-tests. The subjects were 177 students enrolled in Basic Training for Skill Development programs at two institutions in Greater Vancouver. They worked for one class session under a combination of "direct versus indirect" instructor influence and goal statements or no goal statements. A control group was given only the videotape. Analyses of interaction data obtained from both the observers and subjects showed that there were significant differences in the instructor's behaviour between "direct" and "indirect" treatments. However, the findings from the study generally did not support the experimental hypotheses. The different kinds of communications the instructor exhibited following the i i i videotape did not appear to have a significantly linear varied effect on different learners. The presence or absence of goal statements was not a significant factor, there were no significant interaction effects between instructor influence and goal statements, and the original mean scores of the control group on both post-tests were not significantly different from those of the experimental groups. In order to reduce unaccounted for error in the analyses of post-test scores, several analyses were conducted which controlled for age, grade level, pre-test, reading and Internal-External Control of Reinforcement scores, as well as attitudinal measures. In comparing the mean scores of just the experimental groups on the first post-test, the F ratio between instructor influence groups was signifi-cant only when attitudinal variables were entered, but all predictor variables with the exception of age were significant. Significant values of F were obtained on the second post-test for only the covariates age, reading test scores, and pre-test, I-E, and reading test scores entered together. Differences between the experimental and control groups also were not significant, but again all covariates with the exception of age and reading test scores were significant. The superiority of the control group became evident in analysing the follow-up post-test scores. Here the predicted scores of this group were significantly higher than those of the experimental groups when age, pre-test and reading scores were entered as covariates, and when age, grade level, I-E and pre-test scores were included simultaneously. Discussion of the findings focuses primarily on factors affecting the outcome of the experimental manipulation of variables. In looking at implica-tions of the study, several problems related to conducting research in an instructional setting are discussed. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i List of Tables v List of Figures v i i CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM 1 I. Introduction 1 II. Statement of the Problem 3 III. Hypotheses . 4 IV. The Research Setting 5 V. Plan of the Study 6 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . 8 I. Flanders' Theory of Instructor Influence 8 II. Social Learning Theory 20 CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY 33 I. Method of Experimentation 34 II. Preparation of the Subject Area . . 36 III. Preparation of Observers and the Instructor-Roleplayer 37 IV. The Research Instruments . . . . . 38 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA 52 I. The Study Population 53 II. The Control of Instructor Influence and the Use of Goal Statements . 60 III. The Results of Learning Achievement in Groups . 67 IV. Discussion of the Results 79 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 85 I. Overview of the Study 85 II. Summary of the Procedure 8 7 III. Summary of the Results 88 iv Page IV. Implications for Adult Educators 90 V. Implications for Future Research 92 BIBLIOGRAPHY 97 APPENDIX A 107 APPENDIX B 115 APPENDIX C . . . . . . 118 APPENDIX D 145 APPENDIX E 159 V LIST OF TABLES Page I. FLANDERS* INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES 11 II. SPECIFICATION CHART FOR A TEST ON THE TECHNIQUES OF JOB-SEEKING 44 III. DISTRIBUTION OB DIFFICULTY INDICES COMPUTED FROM INITIAL TEST 47 IV. DISTRIBUTION OF DISCRIMINATION INDICES COMPUTED FROM INITIAL TEST 48 V. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY LAST GRADE COMPLETED 55 VI. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SUBJECTS' SCORES ON THE INTERNAL-EXTERNAL CONTROL OF REINFORCEMENT SCALE . 56 VII. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SUBJECTS' SCORES ON THE GATES-MacGINITIE READING TEST 58 VIII. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS' RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE EXPERIMENTAL PRESENTATIONS 59 IX. PERCENT OF TALLIES IN INTERACTION CATEGORIES 61 X. MEAN SCORES OBTAINED BY SUBJECTS IN EX-PERIMENTAL CONDITIONS ON STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE INSTRUCTOR 63 XI. F PROBABILITY MATRICES OF STATEMENTS PER-TAINING TO THE INSTRUCTOR'S INFLUENCE . 65 XII. CLASSIFICATION MATRIX FOR STATEMENTS PER-TAINING TO THE INSTRUCTOR'S INFLUENCE . 66 XIII. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF GROUPS' SCORES ON PRE-TEST AND POST-TESTS 1 AND 2 68 XIV. ANALYSES OF VARIANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SUBJECTS' PERFORMANCE ON TWO POST-TESTS 69 XV. ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SUBJECTS' PERFORMANCE ON POST-TEST 1 70 v i Page XVI. ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SUBJECTS' PERFORMANCE ON POST-TEST 2 71 XVII. PREDICTED MEANS OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS FOR POST-TESTS 1 AND 2 73 XVIII. ANALYSES OF VARIANCE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF SUBJECTS, CLASSIFIED BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION, ON TWO POST-TESTS . . . . 74 XIX. ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF SUBJECTS, CLASSIFIED BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION, ON POST-TEST 1 76 XX. PREDICTED MEANS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS ON POST-TESTS 1 AND 2 77 XXI. ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF SUBJECTS, CLASSIFIED BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION, ON POST-TEST 2 78 XXII. PARTITION OF VARIANCE AMONG FACTORS . 133 XXIII. ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN EACH FACTOR . . . 134 XXIV. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF AGES OF SUBJECTS 149 XXV. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY VOCATIONAL TRAINING EXPERIENCE . . . 150 XXVI. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING TAKEN BY SUBJECTS 151 XXVII. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY WORK EXPERIENCE 152 XXVIII. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES OF OCCUPATIONS ENGAGED IN BY SUBJECTS . 153 XXIX. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS' RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE EXPERIMENTAL PRESENTATIONS . . . 154 XXX. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMENTS MADE BY SUBJECTS ON THE EXPERIMENTAL PRESEN-TATIONS 155 v i i Page XXXI. MEAN SCORES OBTAINED BY SUBJECTS IN DIRECT TREATMENTS ON SCALE STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE INSTRUCTOR'S INFLUENCE . . 156 XXXII. MEAN SCORES OBTAINED BY SUBJECTS IN INDIRECT TREATMENTS ON SCALE STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE INSTRUCTOR'S INFLUENCE 157 XXXIII. CORRELATION MATRIX FOR SUBJECTS 158 LIST OF FIGURES 1. AREAS OF A MATRIX FOR ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 13 2. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF I-E SCORES OBTAINED ON THE PILOT TEST OF INSTRUMENT 40 3. ITEM-MATCHING FOR PRE- AND POST-TESTS 49 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM I. INTRODUCTION What occurs inside the human being as he learns? What internal conditions, such as attention span, level of motivation and earlier experiences, are related to how well he learns? What external conditions, such as the nature of the learning task, the verbal communications of the instructor and the amount of practice, affect how well he learns? Efforts to find answers to these and similar questions have led to thousands of experiments in both laboratories and formal instructional settings. A major aim of much of this research has been to generate a theory of learning that w i l l integrate existing information and permit reliable predictions about conditions that f a c i l i t a t e learning. Nevertheless, as Underwood (1965) has pointed out, no single theory has yet emerged that is applicable to the variety of learning outcomes in the many different settings in which learning occurs. According to Catte l l , advances in learning theory w i l l only be made by using multivariate, h o l i s t i c models which involve the total constellation of internal and external conditions. Such an approach would be characterized by (1) Attention to structure, i.e., i t asks what structures and measured changes in structural concepts have to be explained; (2) Inclusion of a l l structural measures of the organism in the prediction of learning, whether prediction is of one element of behaviour or the whole pattern; (3) Measurement of the stimulus situation i t s e l f in a dimensionalized scheme; (4) The conceiving and measuring, in terms of drive and reward, of tension reduction, etc., in particular, known dynamic structural entities, rather than abstract and general "tensions"; and (5) Handling the time-sequential learning process i t s e l f , also in structural dimensions rather than as a mere sequence in a uni-variate framework (Cattell, 1970, pp. 3-4). A similar viewpoint is held by Cronbach who has stated Applied psychologists should deal with treatments and persons simultaneously. Treatments are character-ized by many dimensions; so are persons. For any practical problem, there is some best group of treat-ments to use and some best allocation of persons to treatments. The two sets of dimensions together deter-mine the payoff surface. We can expect some attributes of persons to have strong interactions with treatment variables. These attributes have far greater practical importance than the attributes which have l i t t l e or no interaction (Cronbach, 1957, p. 680). Because l i t t l e is known about the effects of differ-ent teaching styles on particular types of learners, experiments are needed in which those aspects of the instructional-learning situation believed to be important are systematically varied and on-going social behaviour is observed and recorded. Although 3 such research would furnish the theoretical and empirical foundations for the systematic adaptation of the instructor's techniques or modes of operation to learner differences, the preoccupation of most researchers with either just internal or external conditions affecting learning precludes the develop-ment of theory in more complex terms. II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The f i r s t dimension of this investigation was designed to examine the effects of the instructor's mode of teaching on information acquisition among adult learners. By isolating two "external" variables -- the instructor's verbal statements and the use of goal statements to orient the learner to the task -- answers were sought to two questions: (1) What effects do "direct" and "indirect" styles of instructor influence have on the amount of information acquired by different learners? (2) What effect does the presence or absence of goal statements have on information acquisition among different learners? While these two "external" variables are the primary foc i of the study, i t is recognized that they do not exist in vacuo, but are imbedded in the context of many other variables. Therefore, the experimental aspect of the study deals with the manipulation of variables related to the instructor's mode of teaching, but as the second dimension of the investigation, 4 variables internal to the learner are scrutinized as useful additional sources of to-be-predicted variance in gains on the learning measures. From the realm of personality variables, the construct of "internal versus external control of reinforcement" was isolated for examination because i t previously has been linked to such behaviours as participation in educational programs and resultant potentialities for learning. The other "internal" variables selected for investigation relate closely to the con-cept of "developmental readiness" or the learner's experiential background. Among the variables included in this category were the individual's age, previous grade level completed, level of reading a b i l i t y , prior knowledge of the learning task, and attitudes toward the instructor's style of influence. III. HYPOTHESES In examining the effects of different styles of instructor influence and the presence or absence of stated goals for the learning task on information acquisition by adult learners, four hypotheses were tested. Stated in null form, they were: (1) There w i l l be no significant differences in learning gains between subjects exposed to different styles of instructor influence and subjects in a control group when the presentation of basic concepts is the same. 5 (2) There w i l l be no significant differences in learning gains between subjects who receive either a "direct" or "indirect" style of instructor influence when the presentation of basic concepts is the same. (3) There w i l l be no significant differences in learning gains between subjects who receive clearly stated goals or no explicit goals for the task when the presentation of basic concepts is the same. (4) There w i l l be no significant interaction effects be-tween the conditions of instructor influence and the goals conditions. Further to the hypotheses testing, the subject variables age, last grade completed, reading test scores, pre-test scores, scores on Rotter's Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale, and attitudinal measures regarding the instructor's style and the experimental presentations were entered into the general linear hypothesis testing formula to test for significant increases in the predictability of the two post-test scores. IV. THE RESEARCH SETTING This study was conducted with ten classes of students in the Basic Training for S k i l l Development programs at the Special Programs Division of Vancouver City College and the British Columbia Vocational School in Burnaby. Three classes of students from the British Columbia Vocational Schools in Nanaimo and Victoria participated in the pilot project to develop test instruments for the experiment. 6 The Basic Training for S k i l l Development programs, which were initiated under the terms of the Federal Adult Occupational Training Act of 1967, are designed to provide remedial instruction in English or Communications S k i l l s , Mathematics (including arithmetic, geometry and algebra) and Science (including chemistry, physics and biology) so that participants may eventually qualify for vocational training. The subjects in this study were enrolled in Levels III and IV of the program. Level III is designed to bring participants up to the Grade X level, while Level IV is equiv-alent to Grade XII or high school graduation on an academic program. V. PLAN OF THE STUDY Reviews of research related to the problem which was examined in this study are presented in Chapter II. Included is a discussion of Flanders' technique for observing classroom behaviour and Rotter's "social learning theory" as i t pertains to the personality variable, "internal versus external control of reinforcement" which has been isolated for investigation. The design of the study is presented in Chapter III. It des-cribes the method of experimentation and decisions which had to be made regarding the subject matter to be taught and the videotape presentation. It also contains a summary of the 7 procedures followed in training the observers and the instructor-roleplayer, as well as a description of the research instruments used in this study. A description of the subjects, the analysis of data on the manipulation of experimental treatments, and the results of achievement in groups are presented in Chapter IV, followed by a summary of the study in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Existing classroom observation systems widely d i f f e r , and the theoretical or instructional theory on which the various systems have been constructed determines, to a large degree, the applicability of their instruments to cer-tain objectives. This chapter contains a description of Flanders' theory of instructor influence, his method of inter-action analysis which focuses on verbal interaction, and the experimental findings. The second part of the chapter con-sists of a consideration of Rotter's "Social Learning Theory" as i t pertains specifically to the personality variable "internal versus external control of reinforcement", his analysis of this personality variable, and research related to i t s effects upon learning. I. FLANDERS' THEORY OF INSTRUCTOR INFLUENCE Within the learning situation, the external conditions of learning are instituted and managed through instruction in ways which w i l l interact optimally with the internal capabilities 8 of the learner in order to bring about a change in behaviour. The events of instruction engage the learner's attention, provide feedback, present the necessary stimuli for learning, stimulate r e c a l l , and insure that he gets practice in what he has learned (Gagne*, 1970). In i n i t i a t i n g and controlling these events through verbal communications or directions, the instructor may exhibit a range of influence patterns on the learner. The preponderance of time may be spent in lecturing, stopping occasionally to answer questions, or even dissuading spontaneous learner par-ticipation by allowing only instructor-initiated questions. On the other hand, an instructor may continually strive to educe ideas from the learners and use these as his educative tools. In both cases the instructor is influencing the learners, but there is a difference in strategy. The f i r s t instance Flanders labels "direct" instructor influence, the second, "indirect" instructor influence (Flanders, 1963). According to Flanders (1963; 1965; 1970), the amount of praise and encouragement, criticism and attendance to and use of the learner's ideas u t i l i z e d by the instructor is measurable on a continuum and is reliably different between instructors. Moreover, these differences of influence differ-entially affect the learners. Those with indirect instructors learn more, or at least perform better on tests, and have more favorable attitudes than learners with direct instructors (Flanders, 1965). 10 Flanders further postulates that during the periods in which the instructor and learners are interacting, there are times when more productive results are achieved by being direct, and that a truly sensitive instructor is cognizant of this and exerts his influence accordingly. He may then be more direct in some situations and more indirect in others. This a b i l i t y to fluctuate influence according to the needs of the students Flanders calls f l e x i b i l i t y , and he theorizes that the most effective instructor is a flexible one (Flanders, 1970). Flanders' Method of Interaction Analysis Flanders has developed a method of quantifying the verbal statements of the instructor and learners called "interaction analysis". His system consists of ten totally inclusive and mutually exclusive categories which are described in Table I. As may be seen, seven categories are assigned to instructor talk, two to student talk, and one to silence or confusion. To study interaction using this method, an observer positions himself in a section of the classroom where he has optimal visual and auditory access to the entire proceeding and yet provides minimal distraction to the instructor and learners. Every three seconds he records a number designating the verbal activity during that interval according to the predetermined set of categories. At the beginning of each series of numbers he codes the communication pattern, subject 11 Table I FLANDERS' INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES3 Teacher Talk Student Talk 1. Accepts feeling. Accepts S. clarifies an attitude or the feeling tone of a pupil in a nonthreatening man-ner. Feelings may be positive or negative. Predict-ing § recalling feelings are included. 2. Praises or encourages. Praises or encourages pupil action or behaviour. Jokes that release tension, Response but not at the expense of another individual; nodding head, or saying "Urn hm?" or "go on" are included. 3. Accepts or uses ideas of pupils. Clarifying, build-ing, or developing ideas suggested by a pupil. Teacher extensions of pupil ideas are included but as the teacher brings more of his own ideas into play, shift to category 5. 4. Asks questions. Asking a question about content or procedure, based on teacher ideas, with the intent that a pupil will answer. 5. Lecturing. Giving facts or opinions about content or procedures; expressing his own ideas, giving his own explanation, or citing an authority other than a pupil. 6. Giving directions. Directions, commands, or orders to which a pupil is expected to comply. Initiation ^ Criticizing or justifying authority. Statements in-tended to change pupil behaviour from nonacceptable to acceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing; extreme self-reference. 8. Pupil talk—response. Talk by pupils in response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits Response pupil statement or structures the situation. Free-dom to express own ideas is limited. 9. Pupil-talk—initiation. Talk by pupils which they initiate. Expressing own ideas; initiating a new Initiation topic; freedom to develop opinions § a line of thought, like asking thoughtful questions; going be-yond the existing structure. 10. Silence or confusion. Pauses, short periods of s i l -Silence ence § periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer. aThere is no scale implied by these numbers. Each number is purely classifica-tory and designates a particular kind of communication event. To write these numbers down during observation is to enumerate, not to judge a position on a scale. 12 matter and class formation. Whenever any of these elements change, the observer draws a double line and codes the new series. He also notes the time the observation started and ended and any additional information that seems pertinent. After a fifty-minute session, providing that the observer has t a l l i e d at regular three second intervals, he w i l l have 1,000 t a l l i e s (20 t a l l i e s per minute, 20 t a l l i e s x 50 minutes = 1,000 ta l l i e s ) on his sheet. By tabulating the results, he can see how many t a l l i e s occurred in each category. When the observer cla s s i f i e s classroom activity, his record consists of a series of numbers such as 5,4,4,8,8,5. Later, the computer is used to pair these digits so that a l l but the f i r s t and last digits are members of two pairs. Thus, the f i r s t pair of the above series would be 5 - 4, the second, 4 - 4 , the third, 4 - 8 , etc. The frequency of these pairs is entered into a table of ten rows and ten columns which allows one to interpret instructor influence at a certain time for a particular instructor, and to make inter- and intra-instructor comparisons. Figure 1 shows areas of a matrix and the kinds of information that can be obtained from matrix interpretation. Following are the area keys for interpreting this figure: Area A -- Indirect teacher talk, categories 1,2,3, and 4. Area B -- Direct teacher talk, categories 6 and 7. Area C -- Student talk, categories 8 and 9. Area D -- Silence or confusion, category 10. Figure 1 AREAS OF A MATRIX FOR ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION (After Flanders) 14 Area E -- Sustained teacher indirect talk, categories 1,2, and 3 followed by extended use of these same three categories. Area F -- Sustained teacher directions and criticism followed by more directions and criticism. Area G^ -- Use of teacher indirect talk after the students start responding and i n i t i a t i n g . Area G--- Use of teacher direct talk after the students stop responding and i n i t i a t i n g . Area H -- The content cross containing teacher and student talk as a result of the teacher's use of cate-gories 4 and 5. Area I -- Sustained student talk, categories 8 and 9 followed by more of these same two categories. Research Using Flanders' Method The studies cited below, which have a l l been concerned with the relationship between instructional-learning processes and their consequences, provide evidence that the percentage of instructor statements that make use of ideas and opinions prev-iously expressed by the learners is directly related to average class scores on attitude scales of instructor attractiveness, liking the class, etc., as well as to average achievement scores adjusted for i n i t i a l a b i l i t y . Most of the studies reviewed in this section provide either direct or indirect support for this relationship, and none provide counterevidence of a significant but negative finding. This "process-product" relationship was supported in four separate studies published by Flanders in 1965. The reference population for these studies exceeded two hundred forty instructional-learning situations in elementary and 15 junior high grade levels located in New Zealand and Minnesota. Measures of constructive learner attitudes were the only dependent or product variables in the f i r s t two studies; in the last two, both attitude and achievement measures were in-cluded. The process variables in a l l studies were obtained by having an observer code verbal communication into a set of categories at a nearly constant rate. In general, i t appeared that when interaction patterns indicated that students had been given opportunities to express their ideas, and when these ideas were incorporated into the learning a c t i v i t i e s , students seemed to learn more and to develop more positive attitudes toward the instructor and the learning a c t i v i t i e s . In Michigan, Morrison (1966) observed 30 sixth grade instructors drawn from a sample of 102, located in fifteen different school d i s t r i c t s . Her findings were as follows: (1) The students whose ideas were used more often by the in-structor made greater achievement gains; (2) High praise was accompanied by greater achievement gain scores when Parts of Speech, Punctuation and Capitalization, Social Studies Skills and Mathematics Problem-Solving Skills were measured; however, there were no significant differences on the Usage, Computation and Language Skills Tests ( a l l of these were sub-tests of adjusted pupil achievment); (3) Less instructor criticism was accompanied by greater achievement gain on the tests measuring Punctuation and Capitalization, Language and Social Studies S k i l l s , and Problem-Solving, while there were no significant differences on the Usage, Computation and Parts of Speech Tests. 16 LaShier (1965) found significantly higher achieve-ment and attitude scores in those classes taught by more indirect instructors when he examined 239 learners in eighth grade science classes in Texas. Nelson (1964) obtained similar results in a study of the learning of linguistic s k i l l s . In a small study involving six high school English instructors, Johns (1966) found that learners exposed to instructors who made more use of their ideas and opinions not only had more positive attitudes, but were also more lik e l y to ask thought-provoking questions during discussions. The incidence of such learner questions is extremely low, however, accounting for less than one per cent of a l l verbal communication, a finding independently supported by Dodl (1966) in California and Parakh (1965) in New York. Pankratz (1967) located five "high" and five "low" instructors of high school physics from a sample of 30 using principal ratings , class averages of a pupil attitude inven-tory and a "teacher-situation-reaction test" completed by each instructor. These ten classes were visited for six sessions by an observer who coded verbal interaction by a system devel-oped by Hough, who expanded Flanders' ten categories. Among other findings, this study supported the proposition that the five instructors determined to be more effective by the three scores indicated above made more use of the ideas and opinions expressed by learners than the five less effective instructors. 17 In a l l of the studies just cited, treatment differ-ences were created by finding instructors whose natural styles varied. Results supporting a positive relationship between instructor indirectness and learner attitudes and achievement also were found in a series of experiments in which roleplaying instructors learned, then practiced and f i n a l l y produced two patterns of instructor behaviour in order to create contrasting treatments. In one treatment the ideas and opinions expressed by the learners were acknowledged and integrated into the class-room discourse, and in the other treatment that pattern was minimized. Systematic coding through interaction analysis veri-fied the existence of the treatment differences. Either random assignment or covariance analysis or both helped to control differences in learner activity. Amidon and Flanders (1961) used this design to show that not a l l learners, but only those classif i e d as "dependent" by their scores on a special scale learned more principles of geometry when the instructor made use of their ideas. Schantz (1963) found that adjusted achievement scores were higher for "high a b i l i t y " students under indirect instructor conditions than under direct conditions, but differences for "low a b i l i t y " students were not significantly different under contrasting conditions. Filson (1967) showed that when the behaviour patterns of roleplaying instructors made more use of learner ideas and opinions, there was "less dependence on the instructor". Flanders and others (1963) found similar differences during an 18 in-service training project for classroom teachers. In this study, adult learners exposed to an instructor who reacted more often to their ideas and opinions saw themselves as becom-ing more independent and had higher measures of work output compared with those having the contrasting treatment. Coats (1966) reanalyzed the relationships between learners' attitudes and achievement scores versus various measures which can be derived from the 10 x 10 matrix based on Flanders' categories. He completed a stepwise linear re-gression analysis of the 62 classes reported earlier by Flanders (1965) and Morrison (1966) -- i.e., 30 sixth grade classes, 16 seventh grade core classes, and 16 eighth grade mathematics classes. In the f i r s t phase of his study he showed that 62 class averages in pre-achievement had a correlation of +0.92 with post-achievement and that the correlation for each group was +0.99, +0.80 and +0.92 respectively. Similar correlations for the pupil attitude variable were, respectively, +0.87, +0.69 and +0.72. The same correlation was +0.78 for a l l 62 classes. The second phase of Coats' study was concerned with predicting f i n a l class averages from knowledge of process variables derived from the systematic observation of communi-cation, purposely excluding knowledge of i n i t i a l scores. In each analysis the predictors included several variables which either represented or were correlated with the instructor's tendency to make use of ideas and opinions expressed by the learners. With regard to achievement, process variables combined 19 to show a correlation of +0.67 for the sixth grade, +0.90 for the seventh grade, and +0.70 for the eighth grade; for a l l 62 classes this correlation was +0.45. The same predictions for attitude were sixth grade, +0.63; seventh grade, +0.77; and eighth grade, +0.74. For a l l 62 classes i t was +0.53. One study has analysed classroom discourse by Flanders' categories and the system developed by Bellack et a l . Furst (1967) reanalysed Bellack's original data (Bellack et a l . , 1965) by contrasting classroom discourse in those high school classes which scored highest and lowest on achievement. The unit of study, tests, textbooks, and number of teaching days were the same in a l l classes. High-achieving classes differed from low-achieving classes by having more responsive teacher behaviour, less teacher talk, and more extended pupil talk, just as had been found in other studies involving Flanders' categories. Using Bellack's system, the same contrast involved more variety of substantive-logical processes, moderate amounts of instructor structure of the learning a c t i v i t i e s , and moderate pace of teach-ing cycles. One over-all concept which seemed to encompass inferences from both category systems was that instructor influ-ence is more flexible in high-achieving classes. According to Flanders (1967), the ultimate goal of the study of instructor influence is to achieve understanding of pupil-teacher interaction, and in particular, to specify conditions in which learning is maximized. Yet, only a few studies have made an effort to determine the effects of 20 varying styles of instructor behaviour on learning outcomes among different learners. The direction which systematic ob-servation must take i f i t is to make a significant contribution to instructional procedure is toward a more precise measure of instructor effectiveness in terms of learning outcomes. This might mean a more accurate measure of some specified form of instructor behaviour and some determination of the effectiveness of this behaviour as i t relates to the accomplishment of limited but specified instructional objectives (Gage, 1963). Such precise measures of instructor influence variables and instruc-tional outcomes may begin to show that a given procedure is effective in accomplishing certain behavioural changes while other procedures are more effective in achieving totally differ-ent changes in learner performance. I I . SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY Rotter postulates that "the unit of investigation for the study of personality is the interaction of the individ-ual and his meaningful environment" (Rotter, 1954, p. 35) and that this interaction "as described by personality constructs, has a directional aspect" (Rotter, 1954, p. 97). Therefore, rather than emphasizing the immediate stimulus, as in S-R theory, Rotter assumes that one may identify a reference point in the "meaningful environment" toward which or away from which the individual is moving. 21 Rotter also proposes that "the occurrence of a behaviour of a person is determined not only by the nature or importance of goals or reinforcements but also by the person's anticipation or expectancy that these goals w i l l occur" (Rotter, 1954, p. 102). This axiom then forms the basis for the four basic variables in Social Learning Theory: (1) the potential for the behaviour to occur, (2) the expectancy that these behaviours w i l l lead to a given reinforcement in a given situ-ation, (3) the value of the reinforcement in that situation which is the object of the behaviour, and (4) the psychologi-cal situation in which the behaviour reinforcement sequence occurs" (Rotter, Seeman § Liverant, 1962, p. 480). The following formula represents the relationship between these variables: BP f(E and RV ) and may be read: The potential for behaviour x to occur in situation 1 in relation to reinforce-ment a is a function of the expectancy x in situation 1 and the value of rein-forcement a in situation 1 (Rotter, 1954, p. 108). In other words, i t is probable that individuals w i l l repeat behaviour or acquire new behaviour i f i t is rewarded or abandon a behaviour i f i t is punished. Moreover, expectancy for positive or negative reinforcement plays an important role in determining behaviour. 22 Internal vs. external control of reinforcement theory Related to Rotter's "Social Learning Theory", a useful construct known as "the internal-external control of reinforcement" was developed as a generalized expectancy which operates across situations, and which relates to whether the individual possesses power over what happens to him (Rotter, Seeman § Liverant, 1962, p. 474). The term "internal versus external control of reinforcement" includes such ideas as "chance versus s k i l l , own characteristics versus character-i s t i c s of others, and own potential to control the environment versus influence of others" (Rotter, Seeman § Liverant, 1962, p. 474). Rotter describes internal and external individuals in the following manner: ...internal control describes an individual who in a specific situation or class of situations believes that what has happened, is happening or w i l l happen is directly related to what he has done, is doing, or w i l l do in those situations. If "good" things happen, he thinks that this is the case because he has worked hard or s k i l f u l l y enough to make them happen that way. For example, i f he gets an A in class, a raise in salary, a date with a desirable g i r l or elected to the city council i t is because of his own efforts and capabilities in these situations. On the other hand, he feels equally respons-ible for the "bad" events which happen to him. If he tries and f a i l s to get the above rewards then he either didn't try hard enough, didn't go about i t in the right way, wasn't s k i l f u l enough or is in some other way responsible for his past, present and future failings or misfortunes. It follows that an individual when engaging in this type of causal thinking would tend to be active in the pursuit of satisfactions and be apt to adopt be-havioural alternatives provided he did not carry this belief to an extreme or unrealistic extent. 23 In contrast the image of external control pertains to an individual who is engaging in the belief that what happens to him in certain situations is unrelated to what he does in those situations. He achieves satisfac-tions because he is lucky, other people are responsible, fate is on his side or i t was "just one of those things". The causes of the negative events which happen to him are attributed to forces beyond his understanding and/or con-t r o l . Failure to attain desired goals or punishments of any kind are attributed to anything but his own activities or lack of them in certain situations. Closely related to a belief in external control is the notion that there is l i t t l e or no use in engaging in certain activities since what happens is not dependent upon these a c t i v i t i e s . Also implied in external control is a lack of confidence in one's a b i l i t y to control what happens to him in particular situations. As a general perception, then, internal control refers to the perception of positive and/or negative events as being a consequence of one's own actions and thereby under personal control. Whereas external control refers to the perception of positive and/or negative events as being unrelated to one's own behaviours in certain situations and therefore beyond personal control. The emphasis on the situation indicates that the internal-external control construct is not conceived as a typology whereby people can be dichotomously classif i e d but as a hypothetical con-struct to account for intraindividual as well as inter-individual response variations in specified situations (Rotter, Seeman S. Liverant, 1962, pp. 498-499). Internal-external control as a personality variable:  development of measures, r e l i a b i l i t y and validity Since internal versus external control of reinforce-ment has been a subject of l i v e l y interest during the past ten years (e.g., reviews by Rotter, 1966; Lefcourt, 1966; Broskowski, 1966; Jeffrey, 1970; 336-item bibliography by Throop § MacDonald, 1971), the research reviewed w i l l be limited to studies carried out within Rotter's general orientation. Basically, the studies reported in this section were testing the hypothesis that: 24 . . . i f a person perceives a reinforcement as contingent upon his own behaviour, then the occurrence of either a positive or negative reinforcement w i l l strengthen or weaken potential for that behaviour to recur in the same or similar situations. If he sees the reinforce-ment as being outside his own control or not contingent, that i s , depending upon chance, fate, powerful others, or unpredictable, then the preceding behaviour is less l i k e l y to be strengthened or weakened (Rotter, 1966, p. 5). It is this research that led to the development of the 29-item Internal-External Scale which was used in this study (Rotter, Seeman § Liverant, 1962; Rotter, 1966). Phares (1957) initiated attempts to operationalize internal versus external control of reinforcement by develop-ing a 13-item "chance versus self-determinism" scale. Phares was interested particularly in the question of how people learn new expectancies. He argued that given experiences of success or failure would have a greater impact on a person's future expectancies for success i f he f e l t these experiences were due to his own s k i l l than i f he f e l t they were due to chance. If a person feels his own s k i l l is determining his success or failure, then a series of success experiences should create in him the expectancy of a high probability of success in similar future experiences. However, i f he feels that his series of success experiences have been due to luck or chance, this should have less implications for his future expectations. In general, Phares' results supported his assumptions. Administering a pre-arranged series of line and colour matching tasks, he instructed one group of subjects that the tasks were so d i f f i c u l t that success was a matter of chance. With the 25 remaining subjects he made s k i l l the determiner of success. He measured expectancy by the number of chips a subject would bet on his probability of being correct on the succeeding t r i a l . Phares discovered that chance-instructed subjects had smaller changes in verbalized expectancies for future reinforcement and more numerous changes or shifts in these expectancies than the skill-instructed subjects. These results occurred in both the positive and negative reinforce-ment series. In addition, Phares found intra-group differences. Internal subjects had fewer shifts in expectancies and less v a r i a b i l i t y , (i.e., fewer impulsive shifts) down after success and up after failure. There was a correlation between incre-ments in expectancy statements and success. James (1957) refined and enlarged the Phares scale to 26 items plus f i l l e r items. Using s k i l l versus chance in-structions, he divided 106 subjects into two groups and gave them a line matching learning task with pre-arranged positive and negative reinforcements. Then, one-half of each group was given extinction of verbal expectancies, while the other half did a similar task of angle matching succeeded by two f i n a l t r i a l s of line matching. How often the subject predicted success or failure was the dependent variable. As hypothesized, when compared with chance-instructed subjects, the subjects with s k i l l instructions had more stable, more predictable and greater increments in expectancy statements 26 of success, with success; showed more generalization of expectancy statements to a new situation; and were more resist-ant to extinction of verbal expectancies. In addition, the subjects scoring "internal" on the Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement Inventory acted more like subjects under s k i l l instructions, and subjects scoring "external" responded more like subjects under chance instructions. In other words, James demonstrated that both the personality characteristic of the individual and the specific situation of the experimental instructions affected the subjects' behaviour. James also confirmed Phares' findings that externals had more v a r i a b i l i t y in their expectancy for success; they were more li k e l y to expect future failure when they had just succeeded, and success when they had just failed. In a 75 per cent rein-forced sequence, he found internals to have a greater increment in expectations for success. James collaborated with Rotter (James § Rotter, 1958) in a study of the relative efficacy of 100 per cent reinforce-ment versus 50 per cent partial reinforcement in extinction of verbal expectancies under s k i l l versus chance instructions. They used an extra-sensory perception type of task in which the subjects had to state their expectancy of success. Subjects indicated their certainty of being right on a scale from zero ( l i t t l e or no confidence) to ten (very high confidence). Extinction was defined as verbalizing expectancies of one or zero for three consecutive t r i a l s during a series of no correct answers. With chance instructions, the classical findings prevailed, and partial reinforcement was superior to total reinforcement in resistance to extinction of verbal expectan-cies. Under s k i l l conditions, however, almost diametrically-opposed results occurred. Total reinforcement resulted in less rapid extinction than partial reinforcement. The researchers concluded that under chance instructions the sub-ject interpreted the extinction series as a change in the situation -- the disappearance of lucky guesses in the 100 per cent reinforcement condition, but not in the 50 per cent reinforcement condition. Under s k i l l instructions, the sub-jects with the greater reinforcement took longer to accept the fact that they were no longer able to perform the task successfully. No attempt was made to determine the personal-ity characteristics of the subjects and to examine reinforce-ment on the basis of the internal versus external control of reinforcement. Before discussing the implications of these studies, three arbitrary assumptions must be made. F i r s t , perhaps the most basic assumption and one consistent with social learning theory, is that internal and external adult learners w i l l react in a similar fashion to internal and external college students. A second and less well established assumption is that learning a line matching task requires the same physio-logical and psychological faculties as learning new information. 28 Third, one must assume that s k i l l instruction and the instruc-tor's use of the learner's ideas are related, i.e., s k i l l in-struction places the responsibility for success in performance on the individual. When the instructor uses the learner's ideas, he acknowledges the importance of the learner's perform-ance and this may increase the probability that the individual would see the relationship between his behaviour and success. To the extent that these three assumptions hold, one can speculate about the instructional-learning situation. Perhaps the major generalization from these studies involves the finding that subject behaviour can be affected by specific instructions. This indicates that the instructor can influence the student's expectancies by s k i l f u l use of verbal statements. For example, accentuating the importance of the learner's own s k i l l s and praising or encouraging his efforts w i l l increase his expectation of success in similar and new situations. This was particularly true for internals in the studies just cited, and seems to indicate that when a learner believes that he is in control of what happens, positive reinforcement leads to an increasing certainty for future success. R e l i a b i l i t y and Validity of the Internal-External Scale Rotter (1966) and Hersch and Scheibe (1967) provide extensive data on the r e l i a b i l i t y and validity of the Internal-External Scale and internal-external control as a personality dimension. According to Rotter, "...the items deal exclusively with the subjects' belief about the nature of the world. That i s , they are concerned with the subjects' expectations about 29 how reinforcement is controlled...but none of the items are directly addressed to the preferences for internal or external control" (Rotter, 1966, p. 10). Internal consistency estimates range from .65 on s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y checks, to the mid . 70's for the Kuder-Richardson, to .79 for the Spearman-Brown (Rotter, 1966). Hersch and Scheibe (1967) report consistent test-retest coefficients of r e l i a b i l i t y ranging from .43 to .84 for a two-month interval. Collins (1972)1 obtained correlations of .74 between the 29-item scale and a 60-item (half f i l l e r ) scale with Likert meas-ures. Adams-Webber (1963) compared the Rotter Internal-External Scale with scores from a story completion test. The "projective" test of tendency to see punishment as being externally imposed or as being the result of immoral behaviour was significantly related to Internal-External Scale scores. Cardi (1962) devel-oped a measure of internal-external control from a partially structured interview; his study was also significantly related to the Rotter Internal-External Scale (Jeffrey, 1970). In considering discriminant validity, Schwarz (1963), Strickland (1962), and Watt (1962) found correlations ranging from .07 to -.35 between the 23-item Internal-External Scale and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. However, correlations with intelligence were consistently low and non-significant (Strickland, 1962 ; Ladwig, 1963 ; Cardi, 1962 ; Hersch § Scheibe, 1967). Personal communication with Dr. J.B. Collins, Psychology Dept., University of British Columbia, June, 1972. 30 In summarizing the evidence, Rotter states: ...the test shows reasonable homogeneity or internal consistency, particularly when one takes into account that many of the items are sampling a broadly generalized char-acteristic over a number of specific or different situations. However, at least with the relatively homogeneous sample studied the test is limited in a b i l i t y to discriminate in-dividuals. Other populations may provide a greater spread of scores but for college students in the middle 50 per cent of the distribution the test is more suitable for in-vestigations of group differences than for individual pre-dictions. Whether or not a more refined measure of such a broad characteristic can be developed is an open question. Relationships with such test variables as adjustment, social desirability or need for approval, and intelligence are low for the samples studied and indicate good discriminant v a l i d i t y (Rotter, 1966, p. 17). Construct Validity: Studies Related to Learning Important data to assess the construct v a l i d i t y of the Internal-External Control dimension is derived from studies of people's attempts to better their l i f e conditions and to control their environment in meaningful l i f e situations. Seeman and Evans (1962) and Seeman (1963) found that the Internal-External Scale appears to measure the sociological equivalent, "alienation", in the sense of powerlessness. In the f i r s t study i t was found that internal tuberculosis patients knew more about their own condition, questioned the doctors and nurses more, and expressed less satisfaction with the amount of information they were getting from the health care team. In the second study, i t was found that internal and external prisoners did not show any difference in the amount of material learned that was unrelated to their parole, but i t was evident that internals learned more than externals in areas related to their parole. More recently, Peters (1969) found that internal prisoners retained more material related to preparation for employment than external prisoners, and also participated more in occupational training programs. In several studies concerning internal-external control, internal subjects have been found to improve with more opportunity for self-determination while external subjects exhibit preference for the reverse. Cromwell and others (1961) found that subjects characterized as external persons performed less well in a reaction-time task when granted some autonomy in completing the task. Internal subjects, on the other hand, performed at their best under autonomous conditions. Moreover, Julian and Katz (1968) reported that internal subjects show a distinct preference for self-reliance in both s k i l l - and chance-defined conditions. This tendency was in marked con-trast with that of external subjects who were more apt to rely on their assumedly more competent partners in both conditions. Since these studies indicate that internal subjects are more lik e l y to be self-reliant and actually benefit from greater opportunity for control while external subjects appear to defer to others' judgments and benefit from the structuring of tasks by others, one would expect internal learners to perform better under patterns of indirect instructor influence and external learners to favor more direct instructor influence where oppor-tunities for self-expression would not be present. 32 In another study, Phares (1968) demonstrated that internal individuals u t i l i z e d information more effectively than externals, and a study by Jeffrey (1970) found that internal college students studied more than external college students. In summary, then, i t appears that internal individ-uals learn material relevant to them better, study more, and can u t i l i z e information more effectively than externals. At the same time, on the basis of the studies cited, i t seems that the behaviour of both internal and external individuals is affected by instructions given by "authority figures". CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The design of this study required the choice of subject matter to be taught and the preparation of a video-tape on the concepts to be learned. To test the hypotheses, instruments had to be selected to measure the subjects' per-ceived locus of control, and to determine the baseline achievement levels and a b i l i t i e s of the groups. Tests also had to be constructed to measure the subjects' entering be-haviour and their achievement gains on the task materials. Finally, to manipulate the experimental conditions, an instructor-roleplayer had to be trained to exert either "direct" or "indirect" influences upon the subjects, and observers had to be trained to record learner-instructor interaction. This chapter f i r s t describes the method of experimen-tation, followed by a summary of decisions which had to be made regarding the subject matter and the videotape. The procedures used in training the instructor-roleplayer and observers are then presented, and a description of the research instruments used is contained in the last section. 33 I. METHOD OF EXPERIMENTATION This study employed a laboratory design in order to exercise some degree of experimental control. F i r s t , only one instructor was used in a l l experimental conditions in order to eliminate personality differences. Second, the problem of ensuring that a l l groups received the same basic information on the concepts to be learned was overcome by preparing a 22-minute videotape featuring the same instructor who was employed for the study. While i t might be argued that videotapes are not as effective in conveying information as the instructor in person would be, research findings (cf. Weisgerber, 1968) in-dicate that learning gains by subjects exposed to either video-tapes or traditional classroom instruction are comparable. For the investigation, four classes of Level III students and four of Level IV students were randomly assigned to each one of the four experimental treatments. Each class worked for one regular class session under a particular com-bination of "direct versus indirect instructor influence" and "goals either specified or unspecified". The two classes of Level III students used as control groups were given only the videotape presentation. Before the study began, subjects were informed that the administrators of their programs were conside ing the idea of incorporating materials related to " l i f e s k i l l s into the B.T.S.D. curriculum and using different approaches to presenting information, and that they would be given an oppor-tunity to evaluate a t r i a l presentation. 35 Although the actual experiment was conducted in one regular session with each group, the entire data-collecting process covered three days. Prior to the experiment, a pre-test of the new material to be learned and the Rotter Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale were administered. Data on subjects' backgrounds and reading a b i l i t y levels were collected from the schools' records. During the experimental session, the videotape recording was played as soon as the class had been brought to order. In half of the groups, the goals of the learning task were specified immediately at the beginning of the recording; in the other half, no goals were stated and the recording began with the instructor's actual presentation. The manipulation of direct and indirect styles of influence occurred immediately after the recording when the instructor f i r s t came into direct contact with the subjects. In the "direct" treatment, the instructor spent the next 20-25 minutes expressing his own ideas or lecturing, giving direc-tions or orders to students, making statements intended to change student behaviour from an unacceptable to an acceptable pattern, and justifying his own authority. In the "indirect" treatment, the instructor spent time accepting and building on the ideas of students, asking questions to stimulate learner participation and praising and encouraging them as they presented ideas. Whenever the instructor or students talked, two independ-ent observers classif i e d their statements according to Flanders' 36 f method of interaction analysis; later the r e l i a b i l i t y of their judgments was verified by studying the tape recordings that were made of every experimental session. At the end of each class, subjects completed a post-test on the content of the presentation and a brief question-naire on their perceptions of the instructor's style of influence and the videotape presentation. The same post-test was adminis-tered two weeks later to determine whether the students had retained what they had learned. II. PREPARATION OF THE SUBJECT AREA The Basic Training for S k i l l Development program, as stated previously, comprises three curricular areas --English, Mathematics and Science. While the objective of the program is "to assist individuals to meet employer requirements for job opportunities or to enable them to qualify for further 2 vocational training i f required" , at present no provision is made to provide participants with instruction for job-searching. The administrators of the program f e l t that this subject matter area would not only generate high student interest, but also would enable the researcher to work with groups at both Level III and IV since their "entry behaviour" would be approximately the same. In addition, the choice of a subject matter area 2 Vancouver Vocational Institute: A Division of Vancouver City  C o l l e g ~ (Vancouver: Vancouver Vocational Ins titute , 1967) , p. 32. 37 unrelated to the curriculum made i t easier to disguise the purposes of the experiment. The videotape, which was prepared in the Faculty of Education's television studio at the University of British Columbia, focused on four concepts in job-seeking: (1) the major sources of job prospects; (2) how to perform a "self-i s k i l l " analysis of one's qualifications for a job; (3) how to apply for a job; and (4) how to conduct oneself in an interview. In the 22-minute presentation, most of the major points were illustrated through the use of graphics and slides. Where i t was not possible to make an adequate presentation on the screen, supplementary information was given to the subjects at their desks and they were asked to follow along with the in-structor as he read i t . III. PREPARATION OF OBSERVERS AND THE INSTRUCTOR-ROLEPLAYER Flanders' system for recording classroom interaction has been discussed in detail in previous sections. After mem-orizing his ten categories, the two observers employed for this study began training with typescripts and taped recordings of class sessions. This was followed by observations in B.T.S.D. classes at Vancouver City College with regular meetings after training sessions to discuss unusual categorization problems. Post-session r e l i a b i l i t y checks were made at regular intervals using Scott's Coefficient. 38 The instructor-roleplayer was a c e r t i f i e d teacher with experience in instructing students at the elementary, secondary and vocational levels. Prior to the experiment, he familiarized himself with Flanders' categories and practiced making his presentation on job-seeking techniques employing both "direct" and "indirect" styles of influence. As an instructor, he preferred to use a more indirect approach with students; when d i f f i c u l t i e s were encountered in obtaining equip-ment for a " l i v e " presentation, i t was decided that one practice session employing "direct influence" would suffice. This session was held at Vancouver City College using a group of Level III students who were finishing their program before the experiment would be completed. Observers recorded the interaction, and comparisons made with the percentages of category t a l l i e s obtained in other studies showed that the instructor was exerting suffic-ient "direct influence". IV. THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale Rotter et a l . (Trotter, Seeman § Liverant, 1962) have 3 developed a test for use with adults to investigate perceived relationships between reinforcing events and their own behaviour. This Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale (Appendix A) 3 Evidence on the r e l i a b i l i t y and validity of the scale is presented in Chapter II. 39 contains 23 sets of statements and six sets of " f i l l e r " items which f i t into four specific categories including Academic Recognition, Social Recognition, Love and Affection, and Dominance, and two general classes, Social-Political and General Life Philosophy^ (Rotter, Seeman § Liverant, 1962). The range of scores is from 0 to 23 and i t is scored in an "external" direction. Pilot Test of Instrument. To determine whether the vocabulary level and item c l a r i t y of the scale were appropriate for the experimental groups in this study, and what the approxi-mate distribution of scores amongst B.T.S.D. students might be, the instrument was administered to 156 students enrolled in the program at Vancouver City College during the month of January. Figure 2 illustrates the frequency distribution of the f i r s t administration of the scale. On the basis of the range of scores obtained, i t was decided that the participants in this program would differ sufficiently in their degrees of "externality" to enable the hypotheses to be tested. No d i f f i c u l t i e s were encountered with the vocabulary level and c l a r i t y of items on the scale in B.T.S.D. levels III and IV, but as a result of the pilot testing, the format of the instrument was changed from one in which subjects indicated their perference for items by writing their answer (a or b) in a blank space beside each set of statements to one in which subjects circled their responses. ^The items contained in each of these categories are presented in Appendix A. 40 FIGURE 2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF I-E SCORES OBTAINED ON THE PILOT TEST OF THE INSTRUMENT CO -cc -O •*> O ~ CO 2 0 c o L 0 2 >-*~ O " ^ z z * Ld o bJ «o cr «o I N 0 I 2 3 H 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 IH 15 16 17 18 19 I -E SCORES 41 Gates-MacGinitie Reading Surveys The concept of pre-test use in experimental design has been well entrenched in the methodology of research workers in psychology and education* even though randomization among groups is recognized as the most adequate all-purpose assurance of lack of i n i t i a l biases (Campbell § Stanley, 1963). However, when the use of intact groups precludes randomization, one may use s t a t i s t i c a l techniques to test whether variations in subject "background" variables better account for variations in the dependent variables than do the experimental conditions or treat-ments themselves. Such procedures term the potentially influenc-ing background variables "covariates". In order to provide for the degree of necessary control among intact groups to be used in this study, i t was necessary to identify those factors which might be expected to affect the experimental dependent variable di f f e r e n t i a l l y . On the basis of observations made of students in the B.T.S.D. programs over a four-month period, i t was f e l t that reading a b i l i t y and prior knowledge of the techniques of job-seeking were such factors. Forms E (grades 7-9) and F (grades 10-12) of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test had been adminis-tered to the experimental subjects during February, and since i t is widely known that they react negatively to extensive testing, i t was decided that the results of this survey would be appropriate for the experiment.^ ^Surveys E and F both consist of three parts including Speed and Accuracy, Vocabulary, and Comprehension which are described in some detail in Appendix B. 42 Tests on "The Techniques of Job-Seeking" Development S, Administration of Pilot Test. It was evident that no commercial achievement tests on job-search techniques were available for the purposes of this study. This necessitated the preparation of a pilot test and subsequently, the f i n a l tests used to measure entering behaviour and achieve-ment. Fi r s t , Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956) was used in making an outline of objectives defining the ways in which subjects were to deal with various parts of the content to be taught. Following this, a table of specifications was prepared on the basis of the statements of objectives and the outline of content; i t was then used in the preparation of items for the test. Because of the amount of time available, the number of instructional objectives and the amount of content to be covered, a multiple-choice form of test was chosen. Moreover, despite the fact that these items are the most d i f f i c u l t to write, compared with true-false items, the multiple-choice item tends to distinguish between high and low achievement, is less subject to ambiguity and misinterpretation, and can be answered correctly by chance less frequently (Ebel, 1965, p. 61). In the preparation of items, appropriate evaluation situations were sought so that individual items would reflect the attainment or non-attainment of the relevant objectives. The wording of items was carefully scrutinized to prevent the 43 inclusion of unintentional clues. Item distractors were constructed on the basis of the researcher's knowledge of common misconceptions held by people about job-search techniques. Frequent consultation of Ebel's Measuring Educational Achievement (1965) provided numerous helpful suggestions for writing the multiple-choice items. Bloom's Taxonomy (1956) and Gerberlich's Specimen Objective Test Items (1957) also were consulted in order to minimize classification errors. The number of items within the various content sections covered by the test was roughly proportional to the amount of time to be devoted to instruction. A total number of 80 items were constructed, twenty on major sources of job prospects, ten on preparing a s e l f - s k i l l analysis, twenty-three on applying for a job and twenty-seven on the job interview (Table II). Two colleagues checked the items for content valid i t y and accuracy, and comparisons were made between their responses to questions and the answer key. Several items then were reworded to remove implausible alternatives. The test items were arranged intuitively in order of increasing d i f f i c u l t y , a practice which is commonly followed in test construction. This arrangement was examined to determine the presence of possible correct response patterns and to detect the presence of unequal correct response proportions among the four alternatives. Changes in item position were then effected to remedy the imperfections noted. SPECIFICATION CHART FOR A TEST ON "THE TECHNIQUES OF JOB-SEEKING" Content Knowledge Obj ectives Comprehension Application Analysis Total I. Major Sources of Job Prospects A. Jobs available 2 1 2 5 B. Information sources 5 1 3 9 C. I n i t i a l preparations 2 2 2 6 II. S e l f - S k i l l Analysis 3 4 2 1 10 III. How.to Apply for a Job A. Application letters 5 1 3 2 11 B. The resume* 3 3 2 1 9 C. Application forms 1 1 D. Letters of reference 1 1 2 IV. The Interview A. Interview preparation 2 3 5 10 B. Conduct at interview 5 4 4 13 C. What employer expects 4 4 Total 33 18 23 6 80 45 On the pilot test, one point was assigned for each correct answer since giving weights to different items in a test or to different correct and incorrect alternatives in a particular item does not improve the r e l i a b i l i t y or validity of the test (Ebel, 1965, pp. 233-236). Upon considering whether to correct the scores for guessing, i t was noted that most experimental studies on the subject have shown that the effect of announced correction for guessing has very slight improvement on the r e l i a b i l i t y and validity of the scores (Ebel, 1965, p. 227). Moreover, the correction formula assump-tion that a l l wrong answers are the result of blind guessing is untenable as many exceptions can be seen. Also, on a speed test one could expect slower students to guess blindly on the items near the end of the test, but since the tryout test was a power test, a correction for guessing would be much less useful. It was decided, therefore, that no correction for guessing should be made but that a well-worded set of instruc-tions should be used to encourage making optimum use of partial information but to advise against blind guessing. The same test directions were used for the pilot test as for the fi n a l pre- and post-tests. These directions are shown at the begin-ning of the tests which are reproduced in Appendix C. The pi l o t test was administered by the researcher to three classes of B.T.S.D. students at Levels III and IV in the B.C. Vocational Schools in Victoria and Nanaimo. A total number of 100 students of varying ages, educational preparations and 46 experiences wrote the test. There was no evidence that the test had not functioned as a power test, but i t did appear that, despite the instructions, some guessing did take place. Each student's answers were recorded on IBM 1230 marking sheets, and an item analysis was undertaken using the U.B.C. Computing Centre's Multiple-Choice Exam Marker Program (*MULMARK). Dif f i c u l t y indices were computed for each item and are shown in Table III. The d i f f i c u l t y index of an item is the proportion of students in the sample who answered the item correctly. Discrimination indices were calculated for each item and are shown in Table IV. The discrimination index used in this study is the item's correlation with a criterion measure constituting those forty items which best discriminated between the top twenty-five and bottom twenty-five per cent of the subjects. Development of the Pre- and Post-Tests. Testing the experimental hypotheses required that the pre- and post-tests be homogeneous with respect to content as well as d i f f i c u l t y and discrimination indices. As preparation for the development of these f i n a l tests, therefore, the U.B.C. Computing Centre's FAN Factor Analysis Program was used to obtain a measure of the factor composition of items. Twenty factors were extracted with estimated communalities [squared multiple correlations) inserted on the principal diagonal. Orthogonal rotation of the axis was employed using Kaiser's varimax criterion. Each of the factors identified had a lower limit loading of at least .40, and the partitioning of variances among factors is shown in 47 Table III DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFICULTY INDICES COMPUTED FROM PILOT TEST Diff i c u l t y Indices passing item) Item Numbers Total 90 - 100 26,77 2 80 - 89 20,24,37,56 4 70 - 79 1, 5 ,7 ,10 ,U ,12 ,17 ,28,66_,69 10 60 - 69 13,18,2 5,31,38,39,43,44,46,50,53, 58 ,61,64,65 15 50 - 59 3,1£,1^,21_,22_,23,29_,30 ,34_,47 ,49_, 51,59 ,68 ,73,79_ 16 40 - "49 8,19_,33,36^ ,42 ,48_,57 ,62 ,6_3 9 30 - 39 2 ,3 2 ,4 0 , 54_, 67 ,70_, 11,7_2, 7_4 9 20 - 29 4,6,9,27,35,45,60,75,78,80 10 10 - 19 41,52,76 3 0 - 9 16,55 TOTAL 2 80 Items underlined were chosen for the fin a l pre- and post-tests. 48 Table IV DISTRIBUTION OF DISCRIMINATION INDICES COMPUTED FROM PILOT TESTC * Discrimination Indices (Correlation with Criterion) Item Numbers Total .60 - .64 35_,3_6,52 3 .55 - . 59 47 ,5_4,55 ,66_ 4 .50 - .54 22^ ,29 ,48^ ,63 4 .45 - .49 3,6,21,28,31,38,49,59,67,7 2,79 11 .40 - .44 5,14,15,27,34,39,4 2,44,68,70,74 11 .35 - .39 11,19,43,58,62 5 .30 - .34 23 , 2_5 ,46 , 53_, 60 ,61,6_4 , 76 ,7 7 ,80 10 .25 - . 29 1,12,18,20,37,41,57,69 8 .20 - . 24 10,24,26,30,45,65,73 7 .15 - .19 50,75 2 .10 - .14 9,13,32,78 4 .00 - .09 4,7,8,17,33,40,51,56,71 9 TOTAL 78 Two items discriminated negatively and are not included. Items underlined were chosen for the fin a l pre- and post-tests: 49 Table XXII in Appendix C. A l i s t of the items identified in each factor also is presented in Table XXIII, Appendix C, together with the factor loadings and the original communali-ties which are included as estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y . Using both the item and factor analysis data on the test, each of'the 80 items were matched for subject matter, item type, percentage answering the item correctly (Table III), and i t s correlation with a criterion measure constituting those forty items which best discriminated between the top twenty-five per cent and bottom twenty-five per cent of the subjects (Table IV). The results of this item matching are presented in Figure 3. It is known that a test w i l l provide a maximum number of discriminations among the top and bottom groups of test candidates i f the test items are uncorrelated and i f they are a l l of 50 per cent d i f f i c u l t y . Further, i f the items are a l l perfectly correlated, the number of discriminations made by a l l of the items w i l l be identical with the number made by one item of 50 per cent d i f f i c u l t y (Ebel, 1965). Clearly, when subject rank on some criterion is desired, i t is to one's advantage to design a test in which item d i f f i c u l t y indices cluster as closely as possible around the 50 per cent level since item inter-correlations are generally rather low for tests of heterogeneous content. However, the point has been made that not only the theoretical soundness of this procedure should be considered 50 in the construction of achievement measures, but also i t s psychological soundness. One need only consider the plight of the duller than average student who writes the test, proceeding from item to item, only to sense that his chance of failure on each item is greater than his chance of success. It is not d i f f i c u l t to see how this might lead to more guessing and lower test r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients. In developing the f i n a l pre- and post-tests, therefore, a possible solution was to select items of a wider range of d i f f i c u l t y indices than f i f t y per cent, but to avoid extremely easy items. Two items discriminated negatively (i.e., they discriminated in a direction opposite to that of the remaining items) and were discarded. Items with d i f f i c u l t y indices below thirty per cent were discarded, except for four items whose discrimination indices were sufficiently high to warrant their inclusion. Very easy items with low discrimination indices also were eliminated, leaving twenty pairs of items for the f i n a l pre- and post-tests (Appendix C). These items are circled with unbroken lines in Figure 3. After the twenty pairs of items had been randomly assigned to the pre- and post-tests, the two parallel forms were compared by calculating the correlation coefficient between the scores obtained by subjects who took the pilot test, and from whose marks the items were selected. This correlation coefficient was .63. The r e l i a b i l i t y of the tests was determined by finding the mean of the multiple squared correlations for 51 each pre- and post-test item, obtained from the factor analysis in which the squared multiple correlations had been inserted on the principal diagonal. The r e l i a b i l i t y coef-ficients for the pre- and post-test were .84 and .85 respectively. It was reported that in the pilot test items had been developed in proportion to the amount of time to be spent in each content area and expected d i f f i c u l t y level. Each of the f i n a l tests were arranged in order of increasing d i f f i c u l t y using the d i f f i c u l t y indices obtained on the pilot test. Items again were checked for equal distribution of correct responses, and the alternative choices assigned in random fashion to prevent response patterning. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The analysis of data presented in this chapter concerns the characteristics of the study population, the manipulation of the experimental treatments by the instructor-roleplayer and the results of achievement in groups. The study population is f i r s t described, followed by analyses of the instructor-learner interaction recorded by the two observers. Subjects' perceptions of the instructor's behaviour are also discussed in this section. The next part of the chapter presents the results of hypotheses testing. Data concerning the achievement of subjects under the different experimental conditions are analyzed f i r s t . Further to the hypotheses testing, the results of analyses of learner variables affecting information acquisition in the learning task are presented. The fi n a l section of the chapter contains a discussion of the findings. 52 53 I. THE STUDY POPULATION Demographic Characteristics One hundred (56.51) male and seventy-seven (43.51) female students enrolled in Basic Training for S k i l l Develop-ment programs took part in this study. Subjects in the experimental groups, which consisted of four classes at Level III and four at Level IV, were attending Vancouver City College, Special Programs Division. Those in the two control groups were enrolled in Level III programs at the British Columbia Vocational School in Burnaby. One hundred forty-nine (84.11) subjects were being sponsored on their programs through Canada Manpower, twelve (6.9%) were being assisted by either Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Department of Social Welfare, the Children's Aid Society or Workmen's Compensation Board, and sixteen (9.0%) were paying their own fees for the program. It might be expected that B.T.S.D. programs have a high percentage of enrollees who are either transients or not native-born Canadians. However, the data indicated that ninety-four per cent were permanent residents of greater Vancouver. Information on their places of birth was not available from the schools' records, but data on the places outside of British Columbia where subjects had resided at some time showed that only nine had ever lived in a country where English is not the primary language spoken. 54 The mean age of the subjects was 25.2 (S.D. = 6.27) and generally, participants in Level III programs were some-what older than those in Level IV (Table XXIV, Appendix D). Ninety-five (53.71) subjects were single, forty-seven (26.6%) were married and thirty-five (19.8%) were either divorced or separated from their spouses. While the educational backgrounds of the subjects were varied, most (88.01) had completed at least Grade VIII (Table V), but only thirty-two (18.11) had taken previous vocational or technical training (Table XXV, Appendix D). Of this group, seventeen had been enrolled in a B.T.S.D. program at a lower level (Table XXVI, Appendix D). Over two-thirds (68.4%) of the subjects had worked at some time before enrolling in the B.T.S.D. program (Table XXVII, Appendix D). A clas s i f i c a t i o n of the types of jobs they held (Table XXVIII, Appendix D) showed that the largest number were in service or recreational occupations (30.6%), production processing jobs (17.4%) or unspecified laboring jobs (15.7%). Subjects' scores on Rotter's Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale, which was one of the control variables considered relevant to the criterion, are presented in Table VI. Scores ranged from 0 to 22, and as may be seen by examining the standard deviations, there was a wide dis-tribution of scores in a l l groups with the exception of the control groups where the scores were somewhat lower. Table V PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY LAST GRADE COMPLETED e Last Grade Completed Experimental Total 6 or less 7 8 9 10 11 12 Condition No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Control Group 1 15 100.0 1 6.7 6 40.0 . 4 26.7 3 20.0 1 6.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 Group 2 16 100.0 1 6.3 0 0.0 5 31.3 8 50.0 2 12.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 31 100.0 2 6.5 6 19.4 9 29.0 11 35.5 3 9.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 Direct/Goals Group 1 11 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 45.5 6 54.5 0 0.0 Group 2 20 100.0 0 0.0 2 10.0 11 55.0 6 30.0 1 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 31 100.0 0 0.0 2 6.5 11 35.5 6 19.4 6 19.4 6 19.4 0 0.0 Direct/No Goals Group 1 22 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.5 3 13.6 18 81.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 Group 2 16 100.0 1 6.3 3 18.8 2 12.5 9 56.3 1 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 38 100.0 1 2.6 3 7.9 3 7.9 12 31.6 19 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Indirect/Goals Group 1 20 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.0 0 0.0 18 90.0 1 5.0 0 0.0 Group 2 17 100.0 1 5.9 0 0.0 5 29.4 10 58.8 1 5.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 37 100.0 1 2.7 0 0.0 6 16.2 10 27.0 19 51.4 1 2.7 0 0.0 Indirect/No Goals Group 1 18 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.6 15 83.3 1 5.6 1 5.6 Group 2 22 100.0 1 4.5 5 22.7 6 27.3 10 45.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 40 100.0 1 2.5 5 12.5 6 15.0 11 27.5 15 37.5 1 2.5 1 2.5 Total, All Groups 177 100.0 5 2.7 16 9.0 35 19.8 50 28.2 62 35.0 8 4.5 1 0.5 With the exception of the control groups which are composed of subjects at Level III, Group 1 refers to Level IV subjects and Group 2 to Level III. There were no significant differences between subjects at these two levels of B.T.S.D. 56 Table VI MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SUBJECTS' SCORES ON THE INTERNAL-EXTERNAL CONTROL OF REINFORCEMENT SCALE Standard Experimental Condition Number Mean Deviation Control Group 1 15 8.9 3.27 Group 2 16 7.5 3.54 Total 31 8.2 3.43 Direct Influence/Goals Group 1 11 10.5 4.54 Group 2 20 12.8 4.58 Total 31 12.0 4.62 Direct Influence/No Goals Group 1 22 9.8 4.70 Group 2 16 9.7 5.12 Total 38 9.8 4.81 Indirect Influence/Goals Group 1 20 11.0 4.67 Group 2 17 11.1 4.65 Total 37 11.1 4.59 Indirect Influence/No Goals Group 1 18 11.1 5.06 Group 2 22 9.7 5.39 Total 40 10.4 5.23 Total for A l l Groups 177 10.3 4. 73 57 Table VII presents subjects' scores on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Survey, the second variable considered ah important determinant of the level of achievement reached in the learning task. The mean total score for a l l subjects was 85.8, which is approximately in the sixty-sixth percentile according to national norms. Attitudes Toward Experimental Presentations Before the study began, subjects in the experimental groups were informed that the administrators of their programs were experimenting with the idea of incorporating materials related to " l i f e s k i l l s " into the B.T.S.D. curriculum and using different approaches to presenting information, and that they would be given the opportunity to evaluate a t r i a l presentation. Following the experimental sessions, then, subjects were asked to indicate whether they found the content of the presentation interesting, whether the class had been conducted in a different manner than usual, and whether they would like more classes con-ducted like the one they had been exposed to. The answers to these questions are tabulated in Table VIII. Although a Chi square analysis did not indicate that significant differences existed among the groups in their responses to the question regarding content (x 2 = 6.79, p = 0.10), the percentage distributions in Table VIII show that subjects in the "Indirect/no goals" group were the most positive in their attitudes toward the subject matter. Those in the Table VII MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SUBJECTS' SCORES ON THE GATES-MacGINITIE READING TEST Experimental Condition No. Speed/Accuracy M SD Vocabulary M SD Comprehension M SD Total M SD Control Group 1 15 15 5 4 07 34. 2 6. 45 36 1 8. 40 86 3 21 50 Group 2 16 15 9 4 10 35. 3 6. 80 39 0 8. 36 90 2 24 50 Total 31 15 7 4 08 34 7 6. 61 37 6 8. 38 88 2 22 80 Direct/Goals Group 1 11 15 6 5 54 35. 7 9. 78 36 8 8. 21 88 2 22 10 Group 2 20 13 6 2 80 33. 1 7. 71 40 1 8. 68 86 7 17 27 Total 31 14 3 4 02 34 0 8. 44 38 9 8. 52 87 2 18 77 Direct/No Goals Group 1 22 16 1 4 40 34. 9 9. 52 33. 4 8. 10 84 4 19 74 Group 2 16 14 6 3 50 31. 6 9. 20 42 7 6. 89 88 8 16 48 Total 38 15 5 4 .07 33 5 9. 41 37 3 8. 84 86 2 18 34 Indirect/Goals Group 1 20 15 5 6 58 29. 0 12 .66 30. 3 10 .69 74 8 27 08 Group 2 17 14 3 4 25 33 1 9. 37 41 2 7. 32 88 6 19 26 Total 37 14 9 5 59 30. 9 11 .31 35 3 10 .69 81 1 24 50 Indirect/No Goals Group 1 18 15 7 4 .93 36 1 10 . 24 34 1 9. 28 85 9 21 96 Group 2 22 16 .1 3 60 37 3 10 .21 37 .4 8. 87 90 9 19 45 Total 40 15 9 4 20 36 8 10 .11 35 9 9. 09 88 6 20 50 Total for A l l Groups 177 15 .2 4 .52 33 8 10 .16 36 8 9. 55 85 .8 20 .71 59 Table VIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS' RESPONSES TO THREE QUESTIONS ON THE EXPERIMENTAL PRESENTATIONS Experimental Condition Direct Influence Indirect Influence Question Agreeing Disagreeing Agreeing Disagreeing 1. Content <D interesting 54.9 45.1 72.9 27.0 +J a 2. Class con-+J 00 ducted in dif-t/> ferent manner 61. 2 38.7 54.0 45.9 CJ 3. More classes o of a similar nature wanted 64. 5 35.4 75.6 24.3 1. Content <D interesting 78.9 21.0 80.0 20.0 j > 2. Class con-00 ducted in dif-ferent manner 50.0 50 .0 55.0 45.0 i—i 3. More classes O o of a similar o nature wanted 71.0 28.9 72.5 27.5 2 "Direct/goals" group had the highest percentage of negative responses. Subjects' responses to the question on whether the class was conducted in a manner other than they were accustomed to were distributed quite evenly in a l l groups but the "Direct/ goals" condition. Here more subjects perceived the experimental session as different. Again, the Chi-square analysis did not yield significant differences among groups (x 2 = .89, p = 0.80). 60 As might be anticipated, subjects in the "Direct/goals" group showed the least desire to have more classes conducted like their experimental session, although differences among a l l groups were not significant (x 2 = 1.07, p = 0.80). In part, their responses reflected the lack of interest they previously had expressed in the content, but as Table XXX, Appendix D indicates, the lack of opportunities for discussion also figured prominently. Alternately, subjects in the "Indirect" conditions more often cited greater student participation as the reason for desiring further classes of a similar nature. I I . THE CONTROL OF INSTRUCTOR INFLUENCE AND THE USE OF GOAL STATEMENTS Observers' Classification As stated previously, the manipulation of "direct" and "indirect" styles of influence occurred immediately after the videotape presentation when the instructor f i r s t came into direct contact with the experimental subjects. Table IX presents differences between the two approaches according to the percent of statements classifi e d into interaction categories by the two observers. The figures in this table show that the essential differences between the "direct" and "indirect" treatments are that the instructor lectures or expresses his own ideas and gives more directions in the "direct" conditions, while he asks more Table IX PERCENT OF TALLIES IN INTERACTION CATEGORIES Category Definition Direct/Goals 1 2 Experimental Condition Direct/No Goals Indirect/Goals 1 2 1 2 Indirect/No Goals 1 2 Praises S. encourages 0.8 2.0 0.9 1.4 5.6 3.8 2.9 7.8 Clarification § develop-ment of ideas suggested by students 7.2 11.2 13.6 6.8 26.1 21.1 21.9 19.6 Teacher Talk Asks questions Gives opinions § facts (lectures) 8.1 63.3 6.5 65.9 6.7 64.2 7.7 70.0 6.5 13.7 8.5 8.1 6.3 6.6 12.7 22.1 Gives directions 2.8 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 Criticizes students 1.1 . 2.5 0.9 1.3 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.0 Student Response 11.9 5.8 6.7 7.7 4.4 7.3 5.4 9.4 Talk Initiation 2.8 1.8 5.2 3.8 40.3 49.6 55.1 24.5 No one Talking 1.9 3.1 1.1 1.3 1.8 1.2 0.7 3.9 Total Tallies on which Percentages are Based 360 446 536 557 620 579 491 588 62 questions and gets more student verbal participation in the "indirect" treatments. In addition, the instructor praises, encourages and c l a r i f i e s student ideas with greater frequency in the "indirect" treatments and c r i t i c i z e s students more frequently in the "direct" treatments. The fact that the instructor-roleplayer was able to successfully control his behaviour and create the two teaching styles is self-evident. What cannot readily be seen is whether the presence or absence of goal statements had any effect on the type of interaction occurring. After these data were tabu-lated into four matrices of sequence pairs (Appendix E), a Darwin Chi-square analysis^ was carried out to test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between interaction data of the "Direct/goals", "Direct/no goals", "Indirect/goals" and "Indirect/no goals" treatments. The Chi-square value found was 927.477 with 576 degrees of freedom. This value, transformed to a "z" score of 9.14 indicates that the differences could have occurred by chance with a probability of much less than 0.01. The r e l i a b i l i t y of the two independent observers who cla s s i f i e d the statements in the experimental treatments was 7 calculated using Scott's (1955) coefficient. These estimates ranged from .81 to .94 (Appendix E). ^An explanation of the Darwin Chi-square appears in Appendix E. 7 An explanation of Scott's coefficient appears in Appendix E. 63 Subjects' Perceptions of the Instructor's Behaviour At the end of each experimental session, subjects responded on a five-point scale to seven statements designed to measure their perceptions of the instructor's style of in-fluence (Appendix F). The mean scores obtained by groups on each of these statements (Table X) indicated that subjects in Table X MEAN SCORES OBTAINED BY SUBJECTS IN EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS ON SCALED STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE INSTRUCTOR Statements Direct Influence Mean S.D. Indirect Influence Mean S.D. •p csS •P CO in i— i est O o 1. Lectures 2. Gives orders 3. Criticizes 4. Asserts authority 5. Accepts ideas 6. Asks questions 7. Praises Total 4.45 .68 1.32 .58 3.61 .80 1.41 .64 3.03 1.20 1.24 .49 3.16 1.10 1.54 .65 2.16 .90 4.19 .78 1.71 1.00 4.03 . 74 2.52 .96 4.24 .72 21.00 2.67 21.49 2.44 <D +J est +-> CO VI r-l est o 1. Lectures 4. 55 .60 3.12 1.70 2. Gives orders 3.18 .87 2.28 1.13 3. Criticizes 2.92 1.02 2.10 1.15 4. Asserts authority 3.18 1.01 2.30 1.22 5. Accepts ideas 2.58 1.13 3.28 1.30 6. Asks questions 2.05 .98 2.93 1.27 7. Praises 2.89 1.27 3.40 1.30 Total 17.97 1.84 17.11 1.27 64 "direct" treatments more often saw the instructor as lecturing and spending time expressing his own ideas, giving directions and orders to which they were to comply, c r i t i c i z i n g them, and asserting his authority. On the other hand, subjects in the "indirect" treatments usually agreed strongly with statements indicating that the instructor had accepted student ideas, had encouraged their involvement in discussions, and had praised or encouraged members of the class. To ascertain whether responses to statements about the instructor's style of influence would account for the main differences among experimental conditions, a stepwise discrimin-ant analysis was carried out. The f i r s t variable removed was "lecturing" which discriminated between the "Direct/goals" group and the "Direct/no goals" group at the 0.69 level, between the "Direct/goals" group and the "Indirect/goals" group at the 0.00000 level and between the "Direct/goals" and "Indirect/no goals" groups at the 0.00000 level of probability (Table XI). The "lecture" variable also discriminated between the "Direct/ no goals" and "Indirect/goals" groups at the 0.00000 level, between the "Direct/no goals" and "Indirect/no goals" groups at the 0.00000 level, and between the "Indirect/goals" and "Indirect/no goals" groups at the 0.00000 level. The second item removed in the stepwise discriminant analysis was the statement regarding the "directions and orders given by the instructor". This variable discriminated between the "Direct/goals" group and the "Direct/no goals" group at the 65 Table XI F PROBABILITY MATRICES OF STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE INSTRUCTOR'S BEHAVIOUR Experimental Condition Direct/goals Experimental Condition Direct/no goals Indirect/goals LECTURING Direct/goals 0.68859 Indirect/goals 0.00000 0.00000 Indirect/no goals 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 DIRECTIONS § ORDERS Direct/goals 0.07349 Indirect/goals 0.00000 0.00000 Indirect/no goals 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.07 level, between the "Direct/goals" and "Indirect/goals" groups at the 0.00000 level, and between the "Direct/goals" and "Indirect/no goals" groups at the 0.00000 level. It also discriminated between the "Direct/no goals" and "Indirect/goals" groups at the 0.00000 level, between the "Direct/no goals" and "Indirect/no goals" groups at the 0.00000 level, and between the "Indirect/goals" and "Indirect/no goals" groups at the 0.00000 level (Table XI). On the basis of the two variables removed, a classi-fication matrix was created (Table XII). While the variables removed discriminated between the experimental groups, the classification of cases into groups indicates that the cluster 66 Table XII CLASSIFICATION MATRIX FOR STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE INSTRUCTOR'S BEHAVIOUR Original Group Direct/ goals No. % Cases Classified Direct/ no goals No. % into Groups Indirect/ goals No. % Indirect/ no goals No. % Direct/goals 19 61.3 10 32.3 2 6.5 0 0.0 Direct/no goals 16 42.1 19 50.0 3 7.9 0 0.0 Indirect/goals 0 0.0 0 0.0 34 91.9 3 8.1 Indirect/no goals 3 7.5 7 17.5 25 62.5 5 12.5 of measurements around each of the group means overlaps to some degree as a result of the small distance between means. Nineteen (61.3%) cases in the "Direct/goals" condition, 19 (50.0%) in the "Direct/no goals" condition, 34 (91.9%) in the "Indirect/goals" and only five (12.5%) in the "Indirect/no goals" condition were classified in the case to which they belonged. The results of this analysis provide further evidence that the experimental conditions created in this study were different, both in terms of the instructor's style of influence and the presence or absence of goals for the learning task. Moreover, as the classification matrix indicates, the patterns of interaction are more readily identifiable in those situations in which learners are made aware of the goals of the learning task. 67 III. THE RESULTS OF LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT IN GROUPS Comparisons Between Experimental $ Control Groups The mean scores for a l l groups on the pre-test and the two post-tests of the learning task are presented in Table XIII. Since achievement on the post-tests related to "The Techniques of Job-Seeking" was the fundamental outcome variable analysed in this study, the two post-achievement scores were subjected to several analyses using the U.B.C. Computing Centre's BMD:X64 general linear hypothesis testing program. The f i r s t analysis was a comparison of the scores obtained by the control group which was given only the video-tape presentation, the experimental groups subjected to both the videotape presentation and a "direct" style of instructor influence and the experimental groups subjected to the video-tape and ^ n "indirect" style of instructor influence. This analysis yielded a non-significant F value of 0.32 (p = 0.86) on the post-test administered immediately following the experi-mental treatments, and an F value of 2.71 (p = 0.09) on the second post-test scores which also was not significant (Table XIV). In order to determine sources of yet accounted for variance in the analysis of post-test scores, several analyses were conducted which controlled for age, last grade completed, pre-test scores, scores on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Survey, and scores on the Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale by entering them as covariates. Table XIII MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SUBJECTS' SCORES ON PRE-TEST AND POST-TESTS 1 AND 2 Experimental Condition No. Pre-Test M SD Post-Test 1 M SD Post-Test 2 M SD Control Group 1 Group 2 Total 15 16 31 8.13 10.44 9.32 2.56 2.42 2.71 14.20 15. 56 14.90 3.59 1.90 2.79 14.33 15.25 14.81 3.87 2.44 3.19 Direct/Goals Group 1 Group 2 Total 11 20 31 10.36 9.20 9.61 2.87 2.93 2.92 16.82 13.60 14.74 3.09 2.41 3.05 16.50 13.76 14.78 3.74 2. 54 3.12 Direct/No Goals Group 1 Group 2 Total 22 16 38 10.64 9.07 10.00 2.89 2.89 2.95 16.50 14.50 15.39 2.50 2.48 2.57 16.11 15.15 15.72 2.08 2.61 2.32 Indirect/Goals Group 1 Group 2 Total 20 17 37 8.53 9.29 8.91 2.53 1.83 2.21 13.85 14.71 14.24 3.38 2.66 3.06 13.81 14.17 13.96 3.41 3.64 3.45 Indirect/No Goals Group 1 Group 2 Total 18 22 40 8.71 10.20 9.51 1.96 2.88 2.58 16.11 13.64 14.75 3.10 3.17 3.34 14.20 14.26 14.24 2.81 3.31 3.06 Total for A l l Groups 177 9.48 2.68 14.81 2.99 14.71 3.05 69 Table XIV ANALYSES OF VARIANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SUBJECTS' PERFORMANCE ON TWO POST-TESTS Source of Variation Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F P POST-TEST 1 Experimental Treatment Error Total 8.55 1032.29 1041.14 2 174 176 4.43 5.93 .32 .86 POST-TEST 2 Experimental Treatment Error Total 43.72 1401.28 1445.00 2 174 176 21.86 8.05 2.71 .09 For the f i r s t post-test which immediately followed the experimental treatment, the F ratio between conditions was 0.72 Cp = 0.48) when age was entered, 1.11 (p = 0.33) when grade level was entered, 1.16 (p = 0.31) when I-E Scale Scores were entered, 1.65 (p = 0.19) when reading test scores were entered, and 0.46 (p = 0.63) when age, grade level, I-E and pre-test scores were entered together (Table XV). While these analyses yielded significant F values for a l l of the covariates with the exception of age and reading test scores, none of the F ratios between experimental and control groups were significant. F ratios between the experimental and control groups for the second post-test which was administered two weeks follow-ing the experimental session (Table XVI) were 5.13 (p = .006) 70 Table XV ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SUBJECTS' PERFORMANCE ON POST-TEST 1 Sum of Mean Source of Variation Squares d.f. Square F P AGE as covariate Experimental Treatment 12.89 2 6.44 .72 .48 Covariate 15.33 1 15.33 1.72 .19 Error 1542.92 173 8.92 GRADE LEVEL as covariate Experimental Treatment 19.17 2 9.59 1.11 .33 Covariate 62.46 1 62.46 7.23 .007 Error 1495.79 173 8.65 I-E SCORES as covariate Experimental Treatment 18.57 2 9.28 1.16 .31 Covariate 178.26 1 178.26 22.35 .00001 Error 1379.98 173 7.98 READING TEST as covariate Experimental Treatment 13.58 1 13.58 1.65 .19 Covariate 31.33 3 10.44 1.82 .20 Error 1431.32 172 8.37 PRE-TEST as covariate Experimental Treatment 2.06 2 1.02 .13 .87 Covariate 161.83 1 161.83 20.05 .00002 Error 1396.42 173 8.08 AGE, GRADE LEVEL, I-E, PRE-TEST as covariates Experimental Treatment 7.10 2 3.55 .46 .63 Covariates 462.34 4 115.59 15.13 .0001 Error 1298.20 170 7.64 71 Table XVI ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SUBJECTS' PERFORMANCE ON POST-TEST 2 Source of Variation Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F P AGE as covariate Experimental Treatment Covariate Error 331.02 191.73 5579.57 2 1 173 165.51 191.73 32.25 5.13 5.94 .006 .01 GRADE LEVEL as covariate Experimental Treatment Covariate Error 336.28 79.89 5691.40 2 1 173 168.14 79.89 32.90 5.11 2.43 .006 .12 I-E SCORES as covariate Experimental Treatment Covariate Error 304.33 25.78 5745.51 2 1 173 152.16 25.78 33.21 4.58 .78 .01 .38 PRE-TEST as covariate Experimental Treatment Covariate Error 267.26 8.62 5762.67 2 1 173 133.63 8.62 33.31 4.01 .26 .02 .62 READING TEST as covariate Experimental Treatment Covariate Error 302.91 244.30 5466.72 2 3 171 151.46 81.43 31.97 4.36 2.15 .01 .09 AGE, GRADE LEVEL, I-E, PRE-TEST as covariates Experimental Treatment Covariates Error 384.59 352.65 5541.14 2 4 170 192.30 88.16 32.59 5.90 2.70 .002 .02 72 when age was entered as a covariate, 5.11 (p = .006) when previous grade level was entered, 4.58 (p = 0.01) when I-E scores were entered, 4.36 (p = 0.01) when reading test scores were entered, and 5.90 (p = .002) when age, grade level, I-E and pre-test scores were entered together. As shown in Table XVII, the predicted scores on the follow-up post-test for the group receiving only the videotape presentation were s i g n i f i -cantly higher than the mean predicted scores for groups sub-jected to the videotape presentation as well as a "direct" or "indirect" style of instructor influence. The f i r s t post-test scores, obtained immediately after the experimental treat-ments, were similar for a l l groups, both when scores were unadjusted and when predictor variables considered relevant to the criterion were entered as covariates. Comparisons of Experimental Groups Only To determine whether the combined experimental treatments accorded the subjects produced differences in achievement on the learning task, the second major analysis was a comparison of the scores obtained by groups subjected to a combination of either a "direct" or "indirect" style of in-structor behaviour and statements of goals or no statements of goals. For the instructor influence conditions, this analysis yielded a non-significant F value of 1.29 (p = 0.25) on the f i r s t post-achievement scores, and an F value of 2.80 (p = 0.08) Table XVII PREDICTED MEANS OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS FOR POST-TESTS 1 AND 2 Covariates. ..included No Grade Reading Pre- Age, Grade, Experimental Groups Covariates Age Level I-E Test Test I-E, Pre-Test POST-TEST 1 Control 14.90 15.01 15.26 14.44 14.54 14.84 15.04 Direct Influence 15.10 15.06 15.02 15.21 15.24 14.92 14.85 Indirect Influence 14.57 14.50 14.44 14.59 14.47 14.69 14.51 POST-TEST 2 Control 14.81 15.18 15.21 14.98 14.96 14.79 15.56 Direct Influence 15.21 12.93 12.98 13.03 14.01 13.03 12.72 Indirect Influence 14.13 11.34 11.29 11.33 12.14 11.41 11.26 This table summarizes the results of the program which tests the hypothesis that, while the raw post-test scores themselves were not significantly different across treatment conditions, perhaps the addition of certain background or biographical variables (covariates) will improve the "grapple" on the problem. Those instances in which such additions are significantly helpful are found in Tables XV and XVI preceding; i f the entry on the "covariate" row in the "p" column is 0.05 or less, then to include the covariate in com-bination with the experimental conditions significantly improves the predictability of the post-test scores and one accepts the new predicted mean, i 74 on the post-test scores obtained two weeks following the experimental session (Table XVIII). For the "goals" condi-tions, this same analysis yielded an F value of 1.33 (p = 0.25) on post-test 1 and a value of .85 (p = 0.36) on post-test 2. There also were no significant interaction effects between the two treatments. Table XVIII ANALYSES OF VARIANCE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF SUBJECTS, CLASSIFIED BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION, ON TWO POST-TESTS Sum of Mean Source of Variation Squares d.f. Square F P POST-TEST 1 Direct/Indirect 11.82 1 11.82 1. 29 . 25 Goals/No Goals 12.16 1 12.16 1.33 . 25 Interaction .19 1 .19 .02 .85 POST-TEST 2 Direct/Indirect 107.01 1 107.01 2.80 .08 3oals/No Goals 32.58 1 32.58 .85 .36 Interaction 12.30 1 12.30 .32 .58 Again, in order to reduce as yet unaccounted for variance in the analysis of the post-test scores, several analyses were conducted which controlled for age, last grade completed, pre-test scores, scores on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Survey, scores on the Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale, 75 and responses to questions pertaining to the instructor's style of influence and the experimental sessions by entering them as covariates. The results of the analyses of the f i r s t post-test scores which are presented in Table XIX show that the F values of a l l of the variables hypothesized to be related to the criterion with the exception of age, were significant. However, the F ratio between direct and indirect instructor influence groups was significant only when the attitudinal variables were entered (F = 8.42, p = .003). This combination resulted in a predicted mean of 16.16 for the "Direct/goals" group, 15.95 for the "Direct/no goals" group, 12.81 for the "Indirect/goals" group and 14.44 for the "Indirect/no goals" group (Table XX). None of the F value for the goals condi-tions were significant and there were no significant inter-action effects. Examining the same variables in follow-up post-test scores (Table XXI) produced significant values of F for the covariates age, reading test scores, and the simultaneous com-bination of pre-test scores, I-E Scale scores, and reading test scores. Again, none of the F ratios for "direct" and "indirect" influence groups were significant at the 0.05 level, but enter-ing pre-test scores, I-E Scale scores and reading test scores as predictor variables produced an F value of 3.05 (p = 0.07). Moreover, when grade level was used as a predictor, the value of F was 2.77 (p = 0.09); when I-E Scale scores were entered, the value was 2.73 (p = 0.09); and when pre-test scores were 76 Table XIX ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF SUBJECTS, CLASSIFIED BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION, ON POST-TEST 1 Sum of Mean Source of Variation Squares d.f. Square F P AGE as covariate Direct/Indirect 87.25 1 87.25 2.36 .12 Goals/No Goals 38.65 1 38.65 1.04 .30 Interaction 4.21 1 4.21 .11 .73 Covariate 197.66 1 197.66 5.34 .01 GRADE LEVEL as covariate Direct/Indirect 104.52 1 104.52 2.77 .09 Goals/No Goals 35.35 1 35.35 .94 .34 Interaction 16.52 1 16.52 .44 .52 Covariate 90.29 1 90.29 2.39 .11 I-E SCORES as covariate Direct/Indirect 103.94 1 103.94 2.73 .09 Goals/No Goals 45.52 1 45.52 1.20 .27 Interaction 8.46 1 8.46 .22 .64 Covariate 52.04 1 52.04 1.37 .24 READING TEST as covariate Direct/Indirect 13.66 1 13.66 1.89 .16 Goals/No Goals .91 1 .91 .13 .72 Interaction 7.67 1 7.67 1.06 .30 Covariates 295.41 3 98.47 13,66 .00001 PRE-TEST as covariate Direct/Indirect 103.86 1 103.86 2.70 .09 Goals/No Goals 32.48 1 32.48 .85 .36 Interaction 12.25 1 12.25 .32 .60 Covariate .006 1 .006 .00015 .94 ATTITUDE MEASURES as covariates Direct/Indirect 83.31 1 83.31 2.17 .14 Goals/No Goals 19.52 1 19.54 .51 .48 Interaction 20.98 1 20.98 .55 .47 Covariates 172.73 10 17.27 .45 .92 PRE-TEST, I-E, READING TEST as covariates Direct/Indirect 110.85 1 110.85 3.05 .07 Goals/No Goals 23.49 1 23.49 .65 .45 Interaction .33 1 .33 .008 .89 Covariates 445.31 5 89.06 2.45 .03 Table XX PREDICTED MEANS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS FOR POST-TESTS 1 AND 2 Experimental Groups No Covariates Age Grade Level Covariates. I-E ..included Pre- Reading Test Test Atti-tude Reading Test, I-E, Pre-Test POST-TEST 1 Direct/Goals 14.74 14.68 14.76 15.01 12.94 14.58 16.16 14.88 Direct/No Goals 15.39 15.41 15.36 15.19 13.26 15.24 15.95 15.23 Indirect/Goals 14.24 14.28 14.19 14.31 10.91 14.47 12.81 14.68 Indirect/No Goals 14.81 14.75 14.82 14.67 11.71 14.81 14.44 14.39 TOST-TEST 2 Direct/Goals 14.78 12.62 12.89 12.71 14.79 12.87 13.65 12.64 Direct/No Goals 15.72 13.31 13.20 13.36 15.42 13.24 13.59 13.57 Indirect/Goals 13.96 10.71 10.51 10.53 14.63 10.57 10.17 10.91 Indirect/No Goals 14.71 » 12.09 12.18 12.15 14.33 12.10 11.88 11.65 This table summarizes the results of the program which tests the hypothesis that, while the raw post-test scores themselves were not significantly different across treatment conditions, perhaps the addition of certain background or biographical variables (covariates) will improve the "grapple" on the problem. Those instances in which such additions are significantly helpful are found in Tables XIX and XXI; i f the entry on the "covariate" row in the "p" column is 0.05 or less, then to include the covariate in combination with the experimental conditions significantly improves the predictability of the post-test score and one accepts the new predicted mean. 78 Table XXI ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF SUBJECTS, CLASSIFIED BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION, ON POST-TEST 2 Sum of Mean Source o£ Variation Squares d.f. Square F P AGE as covariate Direct/Indirect 10.28 1 ,10.28 1.13 .29 Goals/No Goals 12.97 1 12.97 1.42 .23 Interaction .59 1 .59 .06 .79 Covariate 10.31 1 10.31 1.13 .29 GRADE LEVEL as covariate Direct/Indirect 11.10 1 11.10 1.28 .26 Goals/No Goals 13.67 1 13.67 1.57 . .21 Interaction .003 1 .003 .0004 .93 Covariate 70.38 1 70.38 8.09 .005 I-E SCORES as covariate Direct/Indirect 13.59 1 13.59 1.67 .19 Goals/No Goals 2.49 1 2.49 .31 .58 Interaction .31 1 .31 .04 .82 Covariate 148.47 1 148.47 18.22 .0004 READING TEST as covariate Direct/Indirect 109.84 1 109.84 2.95 .08 Goals/No Goals 10.76 1 10.76 .29 .60 Interaction 1.91 1 1.91 .05 .81 Covariates 247.71 3 82.57 2.22 .08 PRE-TEST as covariate Direct/Indirect 2.53 1 2.53 .30 .59 Goals/No Goals 9.04 1 9.04 1.08 .30 Interaction .95 1 .95 ,11 .73 Covariate 119.99 1 119.99 14.37 .0002 ATTITUDE MEASURES as covariates Direct/Indirect 73.33 1 73.33 8.42 .003 Goals/No Goals 14.51 1 14.51 1.67 .19 Interaction 22.49 1 22.49 2.58 .10 Covariates 152.18 10 15.22 1.75 .06 I-E, PRE-TEST, READING TEST as covariates Direct/Indirect 8.99 1 8.99 1.31 .25 Goals/No Goals .02 1 .02 .002 .91 Interaction 3.44 1 3.44 .501 .48 Covariates 358.62 5 71.72 10.47 .001 79 entered, the F value was 2.70 (p = 0.09). Again, the presence or absence of goal statements produced no significant values for F and there were no significant interaction effects. Moreover, an inspection of the means on follow-up post-test scores (Table XX) shows that the "Direct/no goals" group obtained the highest predicted mean, but this was lower than their unadjusted mean score. IV. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS The results just presented raise questions regard-ing the relationship between the instructor's verbal behaviour and the learner variables isolated for consideration in this study. Contrary to the predictions made, the "direct" and "indirect" kinds of communications the instructor made follow-ing the videotape presentation did not appear to have a s i g n i f i -cantly linear varied effect on different learners. The pres-ence or absence of goal statements was not a significant factor in learner achievement, there were not significant interaction effects between instructor influence and goal statements, and the unadjusted mean scores of the control group on both post-achievement tests were not significantly different from those of the experimental groups. One might ask whether the videotape presentation i t s e l f was an example of "direct" instructor influence permeat-ing a l l groups, and to the extent that i t provided a lecture-type 80 of situation which did not actively involve the subjects in the learning activity, i t might be interpreted as such. There are, however, forms of verbal communications other than lectur-ing or expressing one's own ideas which may be categorized as "direct" styles of influence, and both the observers' and subjects' perceptions of what was happening in the experimental treatments indicate that they did occur. Moreover, these same observations showed that there were significant differences in the instructor's behaviour between "direct" and "indirect" treatments. Despite the presence of the videotape, therefore, i t was s t i l l expected that the instructor's control of both the logical and emotional components of the learning activity would produce group differences. In light of the findings, then, what factors did affect achievement in this study? From the analyses of covari-ance conducted on the two sets of post-test scores, i t appears that learner variables related to his experiential background and psychological make-up were better predictors of gains in achievement than the interactive effects of the learner's characteristics with the environmental situations created by the experimental treatments. On the f i r s t post-test, the variables "previous grade level attained", "Internal-External Control of Reinforce-ment Scale Scores" and "pre-test scores", as well as the simul-taneous entering of "age", "grade level", "I-E scores" and "pre-test scores" were significant predictors, although inclusion of these variables did not produce significant post-test performanc 81 differences among experimental conditions. The superior achievement of the control group on the follow-up post-test was evident when these same variables were entered as covariates. That the attributes which subjects bring to the learning situation have no interactive effect with the environ-ment created by the instructor's style of behaviour cannot actually be inferred from the findings presented here. Failure to establish such a relationship in this study may have been confounded by a number of factors such as the brevity of the experimental treatments, the "halo" effect often obtained from subjects exposed to a novel situation, or statements made to subjects about the experiment by persons other than the experi-menter and her co-workers. In addition, i f one examines the pre- and post-test scores obtained by subjects, i t appears that these measures were not sufficiently sensitive to measure learner differences. Because many items were chosen which could be correctly answered by at least f i f t y per cent of the subjects, the tests failed to discriminate between high and low scorers. In other words, too many of the test items were too easy, particularly since most of the subjects were somewhat familiar with the content as a result of their own working experiences. It also seems plausible that environmental or social contextual factors quite outside the realm of the experimenter's control may have affected the findings. Several of these factors are considered below. 82 Fi r s t , in conducting the experiment, i t appeared that the different physical environments in which students in the control and experimental groups were located might have some effect on the outcome. Subjects in the control group were taking their programs in a vocational school where they would be interacting with other students who were training-for various occupations. Hence, i t might be assumed that a presentation on "The Techniques of Job-Seeking" would appear more relevant to them than to the experimental groups who were physically isolated both from a vocational setting and the academic setting of Vancouver City College i t s e l f . Second, consider the differences in subjects' perceptions of the way in which the experimental presentations were conducted. As Table XXIX, Appendix D indicates, percep-tions varied across experimental treatments as well as within them. In the "Direct/goals" condition, for example, only 27.2% of one group said that the experimental presentation was differ-ent, while 80.0% of the second group found i t different. Similarly, 72.2% of one group in the "Indirect/no goals" situ-ation as compared with 40.9% of the second perceived the pres-entation as out-of-the-ordinary. The presence of the videotape undoubtedly accounts for some of these differences, but i f a l l subjects had been exposed regularly to one particular style of teaching, i t would be expected that only one of the treatment groups -- either the "direct" or "indirect" -- would perceive the experimental presentation as significantly different from 83 what they were accustomed to. Because this not occur, one must infer that the subjects previously had been exposed to varying instructor styles which caused some to react positively or negatively to a familiar situation and others to react positively or negatively to a new experience. In either case, the interactive effect of the instructor's style of influence with the learner's experiential background cannot be dismissed. Finally, there is evidence to suggest that the learner's attitudes toward both the subject matter and the instructor's conduct of the experimental sessions had some effect on achievement gains. Generally, those groups who found the content interesting and expressed a desire to have further classes of a similar nature made .the larger gains from the pre-test to post-test measures. What is particularly interesting here is not the fact that there is some relationship between attitudes and the amount of learning which took place, but that the findings do not complement those obtained in other interaction analysis studies. It is contended by Flanders (1965), for example, that "indirect" style of instructor influence are responsible for more positive learner attitudes. The present study has sown that there are no significant differences in the attitudes of subjects exposed to "direct" or "indirect" styles of instructor influence. If the cause-effect relationship between attitudes and achievement is quite different from that suggested by Flanders, 84 one might begin to question whether other findings related to "direct" versus "indirect" styles of instructor influence also have alternative explanations. Is i t not possible that the "direct" instructor category examined in most research studies using interaction analysis has included many varieties of ineffective instructors teaching defensively? Should this be the case, then the failure to establish interactive relation-ships between learner characteristics and the environment created by the instructor's style of behaviour becomes more understandable. As Table XXX, Appendix D indicates, an equal number of subjects in both "direct" and "indirect" treatments attributed their satisfaction with the experimental session to the instructor's competence in presenting the learning material and guiding discussion. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The present study was designed to examine the effects of selected internal and external conditions of learning on information acquisition among adult learners. Two external variables -- different styles of instructor influence and the presence or absence of goal statements --were the primary foci of the study, but the internal variables age, last grade completed, level of reading a b i l i t y , prior knowledge of the learning task, and Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale scores were scrutinized as useful addi-tional sources of potentially accounted for variance in gains on the learning measures. The study employed a laboratory design in order to exercise some degree of experimental control. The behaviour of the instructor was controlled by training an instructor-roleplayer whose statements were classified by two independent observers to•demonstrate that "direct" and "indirect" styles of influence had been used. Information given to the learners was controlled by having the instructor present the basic con-cepts to be learned on a carefully elaborated videotape. Extent 85 86 of information acquisition was measured by using a pre-test and two post-tests of achievement on the learning task. Finally, in half the groups, the goals of the task were specified at the beginning of the videotape which was played as soon as the class had been brought to order. In the other half, no goals were stated and the recording began with the presentation of concepts. The four experimental treatments involved included (1) Direct instructor influence, goal statements; (2) Direct instructor influence, no goal state-ments; (3) Indirect instructor influence, goal statements; and (4) Indirect instructor influence, no goal statements. A control group was given only the videotape presentation and the learning task measures. On the basis of research findings related to teach-ing styles and the importance of providing the learner with goals for the learning task, i t was predicted that different styles of instructor behaviour and the presence or absence of goal statements would have a varied effect on different learners. Four hypotheses relating to the experimental treatments and the interactive effects of the independent variables were tested. Further to the hypotheses testing, the background variables age, educational level, reading test scores, pre-test scores and scores on the Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale were entered into the general linear hypothesis testing formula to test for significant increases in the predictability of the measures of learning achievement. 87 II. SUMMARY OF THE PROCEDURE Subjects for this study were students enrolled in Basic Training for S k i l l Development Programs. Four classes of Level IV (grade 12 equivalency) and four classes of Level III (grade 10 equivalency) students at the Special Programs Division of Vancouver City College were randomly assigned to each of the experimental treatments. Two classes of Level III students from the British Columbia Vocational School in Burnaby participated as control groups. While the actual experiment was conducted in one regular class session with each group, the entire data-collecting process covered three days. Prior to the experiment, a pre-test of the material to be learned and the Rotter Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale were administered. Data on subjects' backgrounds, including their reading test scores, were collected from the schools' records. During the experimental session, an audio-visual recording on "The Techniques of Job-Seeking" was played as soon as the class had been brought to order. In half of the groups, the expected learning outcomes were immediately speci-fied at the beginning of the recording; in the other half, no goals were stated and the recording began with the instructor's actual presentation. The manipulation of direct and indirect styles of influence occurred immediately after the recording when the instructor f i r s t came into direct contact with the subjects. 88 In the "direct" treatment, the instructor spent the next 20-25 minutes expressing his own ideas about job-seeking or lecturing,' giving directions or orders to students, making statements in-tended to change student behaviour from an unacceptable to an acceptable pattern, and justifying his own authority. In the "indirect" treatment the instructor spent time accepting and building on the ideas of students, asking questions to stimulate learner participation and to orient them to the problems of job-seeking, and praising and encouraging them as they presented ideas. Whenever the instructor or subjects talked, the two observers classified their statements according to Flanders' method of interaction analysis. At the end of each class, subjects completed a post-test on the content of the presentation and a brief question-naire on their perception of the instructor's style of influence and the videotape presentation. The same post-test was admin-istered again two weeks later to determine whether the students had retained what they had learned. III. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS Analyses of interaction data obtained from both the observers and the subjects themselves showed that there were significant differences in the instructor's behaviour between the "direct" and "indirect" treatments. However, the findings from the study generally did not support the experimental 89 hypotheses. The direct and indirect kinds of communications the instructor exhibited following the videotape presentation did not appear to have a significantly linear varied effect on different learners. The presence or absence of goal state-ments was not a significant factor in learning achievement, there were no significant interaction effects between instructor influence and goal statements, and the original mean scores of the control group on both post-achievement tests were not significantly different from those of the experimental groups. In order to reduce unaccounted for error in the analysis of post-test scores, several analyses were conducted which controlled for age, last grade completed, pre-test scores, scores on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Survey, scores on the Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale, and responses to questions pertaining to the instructor's style of influence and the experimental sessions by entering them as covariates. In comparing the mean scores of just the experimental groups on the f i r s t post-test, the F ratio between "direct" and "indirect" instructor influence groups was significant only when attitudinal variables were entered. However, a l l of the predictor variables with the exception of age were significant. Examining the same variables in follow-up post-test scores produced significant values of F for only the covariates age, reading test scores, and pre-test score, I-E scores and reading test scores entered together. 90 A comparison of the mean scores obtained by both the experimental and control groups on the f i r s t post-test also yielded non-significant values of F when covariates were entered, but again a l l the covariates with the exception of age and reading test scores were significant. The superior-ity of the control group became evident in analysing the follow-up post-test scores. Here the predicted scores of this group were significantly higher than those of the experi-mental groups when age, pre-test scores and reading test scores were entered as covariates and when age, grade level, I-E and pre-test scores were included simultaneously. IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR ADULT EDUCATORS While the findings of this study generally were not supportive of the predictions, they may contain some interesting implications for administrators and instructors of programs such as the one from which the study population was drawn. As the results indicated, variables related to the learner's psychological make-up and experiential background were better predictors of achievement in the learning task than the instructor's style of influence and the use of goal statements. In the analyses of covariance conducted in this study, the variables age, last grade completed, pre-test scores, scores on the Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale, 91 reading test scores and attitudes toward the subject matter and the instructor's style of behaviour were significant predictors. Since the drop-out rate from the B.T.S.D. program is high at present, i t seems possible that administrators could counteract i t somewhat by paying more careful attention to individual variables other than "stated need for further education" in selecting participants for upgrading. Moreover, the results suggest that instructors must be knowledgeable about the backgrounds of their students and adapt instruction to learner differences. Analyses of the data also revealed that adult learners may be conditioned by their previous experiences with certain techniques or instructor styles of presentation. Subjects who perceived the experimental ,session as familiar to them made greater gains on learning measures than those who said that i t was different from what they were accustomed to. This would suggest that previous experiences help to develop a style of learning which precludes the effectiveness of some techniques with certain learners unless they are helped to become familiar with them. Learner attitudes toward the instructor's style also appear to be important in assessing the effectiveness of a technique. In this study, subjects with more positive a t t i -tudes toward the instructor's mode of operation acquired more knowledge in the learning task than those with negative attitudes. 92 Finally, the preference expressed by subjects in a l l groups for opportunities to discuss the learning material implies that the use of techniques requiring greater learner participation is important. At the same time, the finding that subjects in the "direct" treatments performed somewhat better than those in the more "indirect" influence conditions indicates that techniques must be determined by the nature of the material and the instructional objectives. It also suggests that both the learners and the instructor must be competent in using the technique i f i t is to be effective. V. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Rather than dismissing the idea that learner characteristics have no interactive effects with the instructor's style of influence, in conclusion i t seems more appropriate to examine the research methodology. In attempting to carry out a controlled experiment in a f i e l d setting, numerous problems inevitably are encountered. Some of these cannot be remedied and i t must be acknowledged that they have some influence on the results. For example, in this study, there was some evi-dence that the physical locations of subjects in the control and experimental groups might indirectly have affected gains on the learning measures although this would not have been known prior to the experiment. 93 There were, however, problems which could have been overcome had different steps been taken in designing the experiment. F i r s t , i t appears that the learning measures were not sufficiently sensitive to measure learner differences. The choice of many items for the pre- and post-tests which could be correctly answered by at least f i f t y per cent of the subjects eliminated larger differences in achievement both within and among experimental groups. In part, the familiar-ity of subjects with the content could have affected test results and future researchers might be wise to select, content which is less familiar to the subjects. At the same time, considerable care must be taken in developing the test instru-ments. The learning measures used in this study were developed from a larger test administered to a pilot group of 100 subjects. Tests which better discriminated between high and low scorers might eventually have been devised had two pilot tests been run -- one with the i n i t i a l test and one with revisions made on the i n i t i a l test to eliminate poor items -- before the fi n a l test items were selected. A second factor which could conceivably have affected the results was the time span of the experiment. In this study, the experimental sessions lasted approximately 50-55 minutes, twenty-two of which were taken up by the videotape presentation. With such a limited time devoted to the manipula-tion of experimental treatments, i t becomes d i f f i c u l t to asses the instructor's influence. Is i t not possible that subject 94 differences might emerge i f they were exposed to a consistent style over a number of sessions? Not only should longer treatments help to reduce the "halo" effect obtained from subjects, but i t would give them more time to adapt to the instructor's style, particularly in instances where i t is unfamiliar to them. Finally, by using 10 x 10 matrices, Flanders' recording system permits the analysis of segments of instructor and learner behaviour that are truly interactional in nature. However, both observations made in this study and the general confusion surrounding research findings on teaching styles suggest that the many patterns of variables associated with effective instruction cannot be readily subsumed under cate-gories such as "direct" and "indirect" styles of influence without damage to the data and the reality that the data reflect. It seems entirely plausible that the system of recording interaction as developed by Flanders is not suffic-iently sensitive to the nuances of teaching styles and patterns. As an i l l u s t r a t i o n , in discussing the rules for recording inter-actipn, Flanders states: ...We can establish the ground rule that when doubt exists, an observer w i l l classify doubt-ful statements into categories which are consist-ent with the prevailing balance of teacher i n i t i a t i o n and teacher response (Flanders, 1970, p. 50). Confronted with such a rule, one cannot help wondering what this means both for the independence of observations and the 95 possible development of biases about the "directness" or "indirectness" of an instructor's behaviour. Even in this study, where spontaneous behaviour was more controlled, the observers were faced with instances of sudden shifts in influence patterns as a result of the instructor having to deal with unanticipated events which occurred. Aside from the very real problem of producing data reeking with value judgements about the direction of the in-structor's influence, the analysis of recordings made of the interactions revealed that only a small part of the complex interaction occurring was actually being captured in the observers' categorization scheme. For example, in one of the "indirect" treatments, a subject was discussing a particular problem related to finding a job. This the observers correctly categorized as "9" since i t had been "learner-initiated". When the instructor interjected with several statements building on the idea being presented, the observers shifted to Category 2 which also was accurate. The picture that emerges in isolat-ing this segment of behaviour is one of an instructor being supportive of the learner, and this is correct insofar as the analysis goes. What is missed, however, is the fact that the instructor interrupted the student just at a point when he may have been ready to solve the problem himself. Examples such as the one just cited i l l u s t r a t e a further limitation. The interaction, as recorded by Flanders' technique, is predominantly of an instructor-group nature, 96 and there is l i t t l e potential for studying instructor-individual interaction. When an instructor praises, c r i t i -cizes or accepts ideas, he usually is reacting to the behaviour of just one student, but i t is impossible from the data to ascertain the effects of that interaction in terms of one person only. Unless extreme caution is exercised, therefore, interpretations of the results again might not reflect the reality of the data. In conclusion, in i t s application of multivariate s t a t i s t i c a l techniques, interaction analysis appears to be too fixated at the simplistic "indirect-direct" conceptual level to take adequate s t a t i s t i c a l advantage of the data that are available. As methodological problems are solved, however, and as additional evidence is amassed, the contributions to the understanding of individual-environment interactions in the learning situation should be significant indeed. 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY Amidon, E . J . § N.A. F l a n d e r s . "The e f f e c t s o f d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e on dependent-prone s t u d e n t s l e a r n i n g geometry," J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1961 , 52_, 286-91. Amidon, E . J . § N.A. F l a n d e r s . The Role o f the Teacher i n the  C l a s s r o o m . M i n n e a p o l i s : P a u l Amidon § A s s o c i a t e s , 1963. Amidon, E . J . § M.M. Giammateo. "The v e r b a l b e h a v i o r o f super t e a c h e r s , " E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l J o u r n a l , 1965, LXV, No. 5, 283-5. Amidon, E . J . § J . Hough, eds. I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s : T heory, R e s e a r c h and A p p l i c a t i o n . R e a d i n g , M a s s a c h u s e t t s : A d d i s o n -Wesley, 1967. A n d e r s o n , H.H. "The measurement of d o m i n a t i o n and o f s o c i a l l y i n t e g r a t i v e b e h a v i o r i n t e a c h e r s ' c o n t a c t w i t h c h i l d r e n , " C h i l d Development, 1939, 1 0 ( 2 ) , 73-89. An d e r s o n , H.H. § H e l e n M. Brewer. " S t u d i e s o f t e a c h e r s * c l a s s -room p e r s o n a l i t i e s . I . D o m i n a t i v e and s o c i a l l y i n t e g r a t i v e b e h a v i o r o f k i n d e r g a r t e n t e a c h e r s , " A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y  Monograph, No. 6, 1945. A n d e r s o n , H.H. § J.E. Brewer. " S t u d i e s of t e a c h e r s ' c l a s s r o o m p e r s o n a l i t i e s . I I . E f f e c t s o f t e a c h e r s ' d o m i n a t i v e and i n t e g r a t i v e c o n t a c t s on c h i l d r e n ' s c l a s s r o o m b e h a v i o r , " A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y Monograph, No. 8, 1946. A n d e r s o n , H.H., Brewer, J.E. § Mary F. Reed. " S t u d i e s o f t e a c h e r s ' c l a s s r o o m p e r s o n a l i t i e s . I I I . F o l l o w - u p s t u d i e s Of the e f f e c t s o f d o m i n a t i v e and i n t e g r a t i v e c o n t a c t s on c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o r , " A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y Monograph, No. 11, 1946. A s c h n e r , Mary J.M. "The a n a l y s i s o f v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n i n the c l a s s r o o m " . In B e l l a c k , A.A. ( e d . ) , Theory and R e s e a r c h i n i T e a c h i n g . New York: Bureau o f P u b l i c a t i o n s , Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1963, 53-78. B e l l a c k , Arno A. e t a l . The Language of the C l a s s r o o m : Meanings  Communicated i n High S c h o o l T e a c h i n g . U.S. O f f i c e of E d u c a t i o n C o o p e r a t i v e R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t No. 20 23. New York: I n s t i t u t e of P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e s e a r c h , Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1965. 98 Bellack, Arno A. et a l . The Language of the Classroom. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1966. Bellack, Arno A. et a l . Theory and Research in Teaching. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963. Biddle, B.J. "Methods and concepts in classroom research," Review of Educational Research, 1967 , 37_, 337-57. Blackman, S. "Some factors affecting the perception of events as chance determined," Journal of Psychology, 1962, 54_, 197-202. Bloom, Benjamin et a l . , eds. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:  Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co., 1956. Broskowski, A. "A review of the internal-external control of reinforcement". Unpublished manuscript. . Bloomington: Indiana University, 1964. Brown, B.B. "Experimentalism in teaching practice," Journal of Research and Development in Education, F a l l 19 70, IV, No. 1, 14-22. ~ Brown, B.B., Ober, R. § R.S. Soar. Florida Taxonomy of Cognitive  Behavior. Unpublished manuscript^ Tallahassee: University of Florida, 1968. Calvin, A.D., Hoffman, F.K. § E.L. Hardin. "The effect of intelligence and social atmosphere on group problem solving behavior," Journal of Social Psychology, 1957, 4_5, 61-74. Campbell, D.T. 6j J.C. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental  Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Cardi, Miriam. "An examination of internal versus external control in relation to academic failures." Unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1962. Catte l l , Raymond B. The Laboratory of Personality and Group Analysis, Theoretical Models. Advanced Publication No. 13, Champaign: University of I l l i n o i s , 1970. Cromwell, R., Rosenthal, D., Shakow, D. § T. Kahn. "Reaction time, locus of control, choice behavior and descriptions of parental behavior in schizophrenic and normal subjects," Journal of  Personality, 1961 , 29_, 363-80. Cronbach, Lee J. "The two disciplines of s c i e n t i f i c psychology", American Psychologist, 195 7 , 12;, 671-84. 99 Cronbach, Lee J . "How can i n s t r u c t i o n be adapted to i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s ? " In Gagne, Robert M. , ed. , L e a r n i n g and  I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s . Columbus, Ohio: C h a r l e s E. M e r r i l l , 1967, Chapter 2, 23-59. Cronbach, Lee J . § R i c h a r d E. Snow. F i n a l R e p o r t : I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s i n L e a r n i n g A b i l i t y as a F u n c t i o n o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l  V a r i a b l e s . S t a n f o r d , C a l i f o r n i a : S c h o o l of E d u c a t i o n , S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1969. Crowne, D.P. § S. L i v e r a n t . " C o n f o r m i t y under v a r y i n g c o n d i t i o n s o f p e r s o n a l commitment," J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y , 1963, 66_, 547-55. D a v i s , W.L. § E . J . P h a r e s . " I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l as a d e t e r m i n a n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k i n g i n a s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e s i t u a t i o n , " J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 1967 , 35_, 547-61 . DeCecco, John P. The P s y c h o l o g y of L e a r n i n g and I n s t r u c t i o n . E n g l e w o o d - C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1968. E b e l , R o b e r t L. M e a s u r i n g E d u c a t i o n a l Achievement. Englewood-C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1965. F i l s o n , T.N. " F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the l e v e l o f dependence i n the c l a s s r o o m " . U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M i n n e s o t a , 1957. F l a n d e r s , Ned A. I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s i n the C l a s s r o o m : A Manual f o r O b s e r v e r s . Ann A r b o r : U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n , 1966. F l a n d e r s , N.A. " P e r s o n a l - s o c i a l a n x i e t y as a f a c t o r i n e x p e r i -m e n t a l l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s , " J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1951, 45_, 100-110. F l a n d e r s , N.A. "Some r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e , p u p i l a t t i t u d e s , and achie v e m e n t . " In B i d d l e , B.J. § W.J. E l l e n a , e ds., Contemporary R e s e a r c h on Teacher E f f e c t i v e n e s s . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t ' $ W i n s t o n , 1964, 196-231. F l a n d e r s , N.A. "Some r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e , p u p i l a t t i t u d e s and achievement." In Amidon, E. and J . Hough, eds., I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s : Theory, R e s e a r c h , and A p p l i c a t i o n . R e a d i n g , M a s s a c h u s e t t s : A d d i s on-Wesley, 1~9"67, 217- 242. F l a n d e r s , N.A. "Teacher i n f l u e n c e i n the c l a s s r o o m . " In B e l l a c k , A.A., ed. Theory and Research i n T e a c h i n g . New York: Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1963, 37-52. 100 F l a n d e r s , N.A. Teacher I n f l u e n c e , P u p i l A t t i t u d e s and A c h i e v e -ment . C o o p e r a t i v e R e s e a r c h Monograph No. 12 (OE- 2 5040) , U.S. O f f i c e of E d u c a t i o n . Ann A r b o r : S c h o o l of E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n , 1965. F l a n d e r s , N.A. " V e r b a l i z a t i o n and l e a r n i n g i n the c l a s s r o o m , " E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l J o u r n a l , 1948, 49_, 385-92. F l a n d e r s , N.A. § A n i t a Simon. "Teach i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s : a r e v i e w o f r e s e a r c h 1960-1966." In E b e l , R.L., ed., E n c y c l o p e d i a o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 19 70. Fromm, E r i c h . Escape from Freedom. New York: R i n e h a r t , 1941. Fromm, E r i c h . The Sane S o c i e t y . New York: R i n e h a r t , 1955. Gage, N.L. "Paradigms f o r r e s e a r c h on t e a c h i n g . " In Gage, N.L., ed., Handbook of R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g . C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1963, Chapter 3, 99-141. Gagn£, Robert M. The C o n d i t i o n s o f L e a r n i n g . Second e d i t i o n . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t § W i n s t o n , 1970. Gagne, Robert M. " I n s t r u c t i o n and the c o n d i t i o n s o f l e a r n i n g . " In S i e g e l , L., ed. I n s t r u c t i o n : Some Contemporary View- p o i n t s . San F r a n c i s c o : C h a n d l e r , 1967. G a l l a g h e r , J . J . § M.J. As c h n e r . "A p r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t on a n a l y s i s o f c l a s s r o o m i n t e r a c t i o n , " M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f  B e h a v i o r and Development, 1963, IX, No. 3, 183-194. G a l l o w a y , C h a r l e s . " N o n v e r b a l communication," Theory i n t o P r a c t i c e , 1968, No. 5, 172-75. G e r b e r l i c h , J.R. Specimen O b j e c t i v e T e s t Items. New York: Longmans, Green § Co., 1957. G e t z e l s , Jacob W. § H e r b e r t A. T h e l e n . "The c l a s s r o o m group as a unique s o c i a l system." In N e l s o n B. Henry, ed., The Dynamics  o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l Groups. F i f t y - n i n t h Yearbook o f the N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the Study of E d u c a t i o n , P a r t I I . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1960, Chapter 4, 53-82. G o l d s t e i n , K u r t . The Organism. New York: American Book Co., 1939. G u i l f o r d , J.P. Fundamental S t a t i s t i c s i n P s y c h o l o g y and E d u c a t i o n . F o u r t h E d i t i o n . New York: M a c M i l l a n , 196 5. 101 G u i l f o r d , J.P. P s y c h o m e t r i c Methods. New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1954. G u l l i k s e n , H. Theorv of M e n t a l T e s t s . New York: John W i l e y , ' t ' 7 1950. H a r r i s , C.W., ed. Problems of M e a s u r i n g Change. M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n : U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n P r e s s , 1962. H e r s c h , P.D. § K.E. S c h e i b e . " R e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of i n t e r n a l -e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l as a p e r s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n , " J o u r n a l o f  C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1967, 31, 609-613. Honigman, F.K. M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f c l a s s r o o m i n t e r a c t i o n . V i l l a n o v a , P e n n s y l v a n i a : V i l l a n o v a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967. Hughes, M a r i e § A s s o c i a t e s . The Assessment of the Q u a l i t y o f  T e a c h i n g : A R e s e a r c h R e p o r t . U.S. O f f i c e o f E d u c a t i o n C o o p e r a t i v e R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t No. 353. S a l t Lake C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y o f U t a h , 1959. James, W.H. " I n t e r n a l v e r s u s e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t as a b a s i c model i n l e a r n i n g t h e o r y . " U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1957. James, W.H. § J.B. R o t t e r . " P a r t i a l and 100% r e i n f o r c e m e n t under chance and s k i l l c o n d i t i o n s , " J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l r ogy, 1958, 55, 397-403. J e f f r e y , B a l f o u r . " I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t : a c r i t i c a l summary and s y n t h e s i s of the l i t e r a t u r e . " U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y o f U t a h , 1970. J e f f r e y , D.B. " R e l a t i o n s h i p s between i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t , s t u d y s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t s and s c h o o l p e r f o r m a n c e . " Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the Western P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n C o n v e n t i o n , Los A n g e l e s , 1970. J o h n s , Joseph P. "The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e a c h e r b e h a v i o r s and the i n c i d e n c e o f t h o u g h t - p r o v o k i n g q u e s t i o n s by s t u d e n t s i n s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s . " U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n , 1966. J o h n s o n , F l o r e n c e W. " P o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s as r e l a t e d t o i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l . " U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1961. J u l i a n , J.W. § S.B. K a t z . " I n t e r n a l v e r s u s e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l and the v a l u e of r e i n f o r c e m e n t , " J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y , 1968 , 76_, 43-48. 102 K l a u s m e i e r , H.J. § R.E. R i p p l e . L e a r n i n g and Human A b i l i t i e s . T h i r d E d i t i o n . New York: Harper Q Row, 1971. K o w a t r a k u l , S. "Some b e h a v i o r s o f e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l c h i l d r e n r e l a t e d t o c l a s s r o o m a c t i v i t i e s and s u b j e c t a r e a s , " J o u r n a l  of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , June 1959 , 5_0, 121-28. Ladwig, G.W. " P e r s o n a l , s i t u a t i o n a l and s o c i a l d e t e r m i n a n t s o f p r e f e r e n c e f o r d e l a y e d r e i n f o r c e m e n t . " U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1963. L a S h i e r , W.S. "An a n a l y s i s o f c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f the v e r b a l be-h a v i o r o f s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s o f e i g h t h grade p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a BSCS l a b o r a t o r y b l o c k . " U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Taxas, 1965. L e f c o u r t , H.M. " I n t e r n a l v e r s u s e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l of r e i n f o r c e m e n t : a r e v i e w , " P s y c h o l o g y B u l l e t i n , 1966, 65_, 206-20. L e w i n , K u r t . A Dynamic Theory o f P e r s o n a l i t y . New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1935. L e w i n , K u r t . P r i n c i p l e s o f T o p o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1936. L i p p i t t , R. § R.K. White. "The s o c i a l c l i m a t e o f c h i l d r e n ' s g r o u p s . " I n B a r k e r , R.G. e t a l . , e ds., C h i l d B e h a v i o r and Development. New Yo r k : Harper § Row, 1943, 458-508. M e d l e y , D.M. § H.E. M i t z e l . " Measuring c l a s s r o o m b e h a v i o r by s y s t e m a t i c o b s e r v a t i o n . " I n Gage, N.L., ed., Handbook of  Re s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g . C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1963, Cha p t e r 6, 247-328. Me d l e y , D.M. § H.E. M i t z e l . "A t e c h n i q u e f o r measuring c l a s s r o o m b e h a v i o r , " J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , A p r i l 1958, 49, 86-92. Meux, M i l t o n § B.O. Smith. " L o g i c a l d i m e n s i o n s o f t e a c h i n g b e h a v i o r . " I n B i d d l e , B . J. § W.L. E l l e n a , eds., Contemporary  Research on Teacher E f f e c t i v e n e s s . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t § W i n s t o n , 1964, Chapter 5 , 127-64. M i n n i s , D.L. § K. S h r a b l e . "The model i n us e , " Theory i n t o  P r a c t i c e , 1968, V I I , No. 5, 168-71. M o r r i s o n , B e t t y M. "The r e a c t i o n s of i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l c h i l d r e n ' t o p a t t e r n s o f t e a c h i n g b e h a v i o r . " U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n , 1966. Mur r a y , C. Kenneth. " S y s t e m a t i c O b s e r v a t i o n , " J o u r n a l o f Research  and Development i n E d u c a t i o n , F a l l 1970, IV, No. 1, 34-51. 103 M u r r a y , Henry A. E x p l o r a t i o n s i n P e r s o n a l i t y . New York: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1938 . M u r r a y , Henry A. § C l y d e K l u c k h o l n . " O u t l i n e o f a c o n c e p t i o n o f p e r s o n a l i t y . " In K l u c k h o l n , C l y d e , M u r r a y , Henry A. § D a v i d M. S c h n e i d e r , eds. , P e r s o n a l i t y i n N a t u r e , S o c i e t y and C u l t u r e . New York: Knapp, 1953, C hapter T~. N e l s o n , L.N. "The e f f e c t s o f c l a s s r o o m i n t e r a c t i o n on p u p i l l i n -g u i s t i c p e r f o r m a n c e , " D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1964 , 2_5, 789. N u n n a l l y , Jum. P s y c h o m e t r i c Theory. New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1967. Ober, R i c h a r d L. "The n a t u r e o f i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s , " High  S c h o o l J o u r n a l , October 1967, No. 51, 7-16. Ober, R i c h a r d L. "The r e c i p r o c a l c a t e g o r y • s y s t e m , " J o u r n a l o f R e s e a r c h and Development i n E d u c a t i o n , F a l l 1970" IV, No. 1, 34-51. ; ~~ O l i v e r , Donald W. § James P. Shaver. T e a c h i n g P u b l i c I s s u e s i n  the High S c h o o l . B o s t o n : H o u g h t o n - M i f f l i n , 1966. Openshaw, M. K a r l § F r e d e r i c k R. C y p e r t . "The development o f a taxonomy f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t e a c h e r c l a s s r o o m b e h a v i o r . " Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y R e s e a r c h F o u n d a t i o n , 1966. P a n k r a n t z , R. " V e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s i n the c l a s s r o o m o f s e l e c t e d p h y s i c s t e a c h e r s : p h y s i c s . " U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1966. P a r s o n s , Theodore, W. Guided S e l f - A n a l y s i s System f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l  Development. E d u c a t i o n S e r i e s . B e r k e l e y , C a l i f o r n i a , p r i v a t e l y p r i n t e d , 196 8. P e r k i n s , H. "A p r o c e d u r e f o r a s s e s s i n g the c l a s s r o o m b e h a v i o r o f s t u d e n t s and t e a c h e r s , " A m erican E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 1964, 1, 249-60. P e r v i n , L.A. "Performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n as a f u n c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l - e n v i r o n m e n t f i t , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1968, 69_, 56-8. P e t e r s , John M. " I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l , l e a r n i n g and p a r t i c i -p a t i o n i n o c c u p a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n , " A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , F a l l 1969, XX, No. 1, 23-44. P h a r e s , E. J e r r y . " D i f f e r e n t i a l u t i l i z a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n as a f u n c t i o n of i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l , " J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 1968, 36, 649-662. 104 R o t t e r , J u l i a n B. " G e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r i n t e r n a l v e r s u s e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t , " P s y c h o l o g y Monographs, 1966, 8_0, 1-28. R o t t e r , J u l i a n B. "The r o l e o f the p s y c h o l o g i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g the d i r e c t i o n o f human b e h a v i o r . " In J o n e s , M a r s h a l l , ed., Nebraska Symposium on M o t i v a t i o n . L i n c o l n , N e b r a s k a : U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska P r e s s , 1955. R o t t e r , J u l i a n B. S o c i a l L e a r n i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . E n g l e w o o d - C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1954. R o t t e r , J.B., Seeman, M. § S. L i v e r a n t . " I n t e r n a l v e r s u s e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l o f r e i n f r o c e m e n t s : a major v a r i a b l e i n b e h a v i o r t h e o r y . " In Washburne, N.F., ed., D e c i s i o n s , V a l u e s and Groups. Volume 2. London: Pergamon P r e s s , 1962, 473-516. Ryans, D. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f T e a c h e r s . Washington, D.C.: C o u n c i l on E d u c a t i o n , 1960. S c h a n t z , B e t t y M.B. "An e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y comparing the e f f e c t s o f v e r b a l r e c a l l by c h i l d r e n i n d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t t e a c h i n g methods -as a t o o l of measurement." U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1963. S c h u e l e r , H., G o l d , M.J. § H.E. M i t z e l . The use o f t e l e v i s i o n  f o r i m p r o v i n g t e a c h i n g t r a i n i n g and f o r i m p r o v i n g measures  of s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r p e r f o r m a n c e . Phase I : improvement o f ~  s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g . U.S. Department of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and W e l f a r e , O f f i c e of E d u c a t i o n , Grant No. 730035. New York': Hunter C o l l e g e of the C i t y U n i v e r s i t y o f New Y o r k , 1962. Schwarz, J.C. " F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g e x p e c t a n c y change d u r i n g d e l a y i n a s e r i e s o f t r i a l s on a c o n t r o l l e d s k i l l t a s k . " U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1963. S e a r s , P a u l i n e S. The e f f e c t o f c l a s s r o o m c o n d i t i o n s on the s t r e n g t h of achievement m o t i v e and work ou t p u t of eleme"ntary  s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . U.S. Department of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and W e l f a r e , C o o p e r a t i v e R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t No. 873. S t a n f o r d , C a l i f o r n i a : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963. Seeman, M. " A l i e n a t i o n and s o c i a l l e a r n i n g i n a r e f o r m a t o r y , " A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y , 1963, 6_9_, 270-84. Seeman, M. § J.W. Evans. " A l i e n a t i o n and l e a r n i n g i n a h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g , " A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1962, 27, 772-93. 105 S m i t h , B.O. "A c o n c e p t u a l a n a l y s i s of i n s t r u c t i o n a l b e h a v i o r , " J o u r n a l o f Teacher E d u c a t i o n , 1963, 14_, 294-98. S m i t h , B.O. e t a l . A Study o f the L o g i c o f T e a c h i n g . U.S. O f f i c e of E d u c a t i o n , C o o p e r a t i v e R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t No. 258 (7257). Urbana, I l l i n o i s : U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s P r e s s , 1962. Smith B.O. e t a l . A T e n t a t i v e Report on the S t r a t e g i e s o f T e a c h i n g . Urbana, I l l i n o i s : Bureau of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 1964. S m i t h , D.E.P. " F i t t e a c h i n g methods to p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e , " High S c h o o l J o u r n a l , 1955 , 39_, 167-71. S o a r , R o b e r t S. "Research f i n d i n g s from s y s t e m a t i c o b s e r v a t i o n , " J o u r n a l of R e s e a r c h and Development i n E d u c a t i o n , F a l l 1970, IV, No. 1, 116-22. S t r i c k l a n d , Bonnie R. "The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f awareness to v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n . " U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a -t i o n , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1962. S u l l i v a n , H a r r y S. The I n t e r p e r s o n a l Theory o f P s y c h i a t r y . New Yo r k : N o r t o n , 1953. S u l l i v a n , H a r r y S. C l i n i c a l S t u d i e s i n P s y c h i a t r y . New York: N o r t o n , 1956. T h e l e n , H e r b e r t A. " E x p e r i m e n t a l r e s e a r c h toward a t h e o r y of i n s t r u c t i o n , " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1951 , 45 , 89-136. Throop, Warren F. § A.P. MacDonald, J r . " I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l l o c u s of c o n t r o l : a b i b l i o g r a p h y , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1971 , 2 8 , 125-190. Underwood, B . J . "The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s o f r o t e v e r b a l l e a r n i n g . " In M e l t o n , A.W., ed., C a t e g o r i e s o f Human L e a r n i n g . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1965, 47-78. Watt, N.F. "The r e l a t i o n o f p u b l i c commitment, d e l a y a f t e r commit-ment and some i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s t o changes i n v e r b a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s . " U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1962. Webb, J.N. "Taxonomy o f c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r : a system f o r the a n a l y s i s o f i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o c e s s e s , " J o u r n a l o f Research and  Development i n E d u c a t i o n , F a l l 1970, IV, No. T~, 23- 33. 106 Weisgerber, Robert A., ed. Instructional Process and Media  Innovation. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968. Wispe", L.G. "Evaluating section teaching methods in the intro-ductory course," Journal of Educational Research, 1951, 45, 161-186. Withall, J. "Development of a climate index," Journal of  Educational Research, 1951, 4_5 , 93-99. Withall, J. "Development of a technique for the measurement of socio-emotional climate in classrooms," Journal of Experimental  Education, 1949, XVII, No. 3, 347-61. Wood, Samuel E. "A multidimensional model for the observation, analysis and assessment of classroom behavior," Journal of  Research and Development in Education, F a l l , 1970~j IV, No. 1, 84-88. Wrightstone, J.W. "measuring teacher conduct of class discussion," Elementary School Journal, 1934, No. 34, 454-60. 107 A P P E N D I X A Page 1. Social Reaction Inventory 108 2. Categories in Rotter's Internal-External Control of Reinforcement Scale 112 108 SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY This is a questionnaire to find out the way in which certain important events in our society affect different people. Each item consists of a pair of alternatives let-tered a_ or b_. Please select the one statement of each pair (and onIy one) which you more strongly believe to be the case as far as you're concerned. Be sure to select the one you actually believe to be more true rather than the one you think you should choose or the one you would like to be true. This is a measure of personal belief; obviously, there are no right or wrong answers . Please answer these items carefully but do not spend too much time on any one item. Be sure to find an answer for every, choice. Circle the letter of the statement for each item which you believe is more true. For example, look at the fol-lowing item: J more strongly believe that 1. a. Girls should keep up with the latest fashions. b. Girls should be independent and choose what they like. If you more strongly believe that "a" is correct, circle the letter "a". If you more strongly believe that "b" is correct, circle the letter "b". In some instances you may discover that you believe both statements or neither one. In such cases, be sure to select the one you more strongly believe to be the case as far as you 're concerned. Also try to respond to each item separately when making your choice; do not be influenced by your previous choices. REMEMBER: Select that alternative which you personally believe  to be more true. I_ more s t r o n g l y b e l i e v e t h a t : 1. a. C h i l d r e n get i n t o t r o u b l e because t h e i r p a r e n t s p u n i s h them too much. b. The t r o u b l e w i t h most c h i l d r e n nowadays i s t h a t t h e i r p a r e n t s are too easy w i t h them. 109 more s t r o n g l y b e l i e v e t h a t : Many o f the unhappy t h i n g s i n p e o p l e ' s l i v e s are p a r t l y due to bad l u c k . P e o p l e ' s m i s f o r t u n e s r e s u l t from the m i s t a k e s they make . One o f the major r e a s o n s why we have wars i s because p e o p l e don't take enough i n t e r e s t i n p o l i t i c s . There w i l l always be wars, no m a t t e r how h a r d p e o p l e t r y t o p r e v e n t them. In the l o n g r u n p e o p l e get the r e s p e c t t h e y d e s e r v e i n t h i s w o r l d . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , an i n d i v i d u a l ' s w o r t h o f t e n passes un-r e c o g n i z e d no m a t t e r how h a r d he t r i e s . The i d e a t h a t t e a c h e r s are u n f a i r t o s t u d e n t s i s non-sense . Most s t u d e n t s don't r e a l i z e the e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e i r grades a re i n f l u e n c e d by a c c i d e n t a l h a p p e n i n g s . W i t h o u t the r i g h t b r e a k s one cannot be an e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r . Capable p e o p l e who f a i l t o become l e a d e r s have not t a k e n advantage o f t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t i e s . No m a t t e r how h a r d you t r y some p e o p l e j u s t don't l i k e you. P e o p l e who c a n ' t get o t h e r s to l i k e them don't under-s t a n d how t o get a l o n g w i t h o t h e r s . H e r e d i t y p l a y s the major r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g one's p e r s o n a l i t y . I t i s one's e x p e r i e n c e i n l i f e w h i c h d e t e r m i n e what t h e y ' r e l i k e . I have o f t e n found t h a t what i s g o i n g t o happen w i l l happen. T r u s t i n g t o f a t e has never t u r n e d out as w e l l f o r me as making a d e c i s i o n t o t a k e a d e f i n i t e c o u r s e o f a c t i o n . In the case o f the w e l l p r e p a r e d s t u d e n t t h e r e i s r a r e l y i f ever such a t h i n g as an u n f a i r t e s t . Many times exam q u e s t i o n s t e n d to be so u n r e l a t e d t o c o u r s e work t h a t s t u d y i n g i s r e a l l y u s e l e s s . 110 (3) I more s t r o n g l y b e l i e v e t h a t : 11. a. Becoming a s u c c e s s i s a m a t t e r o f h a r d work, l u c k has l i t t l e or n o t h i n g to do w i t h i t . b. G e t t i n g a good j o b depends m a i n l y on b e i n g i n the r i g h t p l a c e a t the r i g h t t i m e . 12. a. The average c i t i z e n can have an i n f l u e n c e i n govern-ment d e c i s i o n s . b. T h i s w o r l d i s r u n by the few p e o p l e i n power, and t h e r e i s not much the l i t t l e guy can do about i t . 13. a. When I make p l a n s , I am almost c e r t a i n t h a t I can make them work. b. I t i s not always w i s e t o p l a n too f a r ahead because many t h i n g s t u r n out t o be a m a t t e r o f good or bad f o r t u n e anyhow. 14. a. There are c e r t a i n p e o p l e who are j u s t no good, b. There i s some good i n everybody. 15. a. In my case g e t t i n g what I want has l i t t l e or n o t h i n g t o do w i t h l u c k . b. Many ti m e s we might j u s t as w e l l d e c i d e what to do by f l i p p i n g a c o i n . 16. a. Who g e t s to be the boss o f t e n depends on who. was l u c k y enough t o be i n the r i g h t p l a c e f i r s t . b. G e t t i n g p e o p l e t o do the r i g h t t h i n g depends upon a b i l i t y , l u c k has l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g t o do w i t h i t . 17. a. As f a r as w o r l d a f f a i r s a re c o n c e r n e d , most o f us are the v i c t i m s o f f o r c e s we can n e i t h e r u n d e r s t a n d nor c o n t r o l . b. By t a k i n g an a c t i v e p a r t i n p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l a f f a i r s the p e o p l e can c o n t r o l w o r l d e v e n t s . 18. a. Most p e o p l e don't r e a l i z e the e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e i r l i v e s a re c o n t r o l l e d by a c c i d e n t a l h a p p e n i n g s . b. There r e a l l y i s no such t h i n g as " l u c k " . 19. a. One s h o u l d always be w i l l i n g t o admit h i s m i s t a k e s , b. I t i s u s u a l l y b e s t t o c o v e r up one's m i s t a k e s . 20. a. I t i s h a r d t o know whether or not a p e r s o n r e a l l y l i k e s you. b. How many f r i e n d s you have depends upon how n i c e a p e r s o n you a r e . I l l (4) I more strongly believe that: 21. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones. b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of a b i l i t y , ignorance, laziness, or a l l three. 22. a. With enough effort we can wipe out p o l i t i c a l corrup-tion . b. It is d i f f i c u l t for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office. 23. a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades I get. b. There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the grades I get. 24. a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do. b. A good leader makes i t clear to everybody what their jobs are. 25. a. Many times I feel that I have l i t t l e influence over the things that happen to me. b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my l i f e . 26. a. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly. b. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, i f they like you, they like you. 27. a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school, b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character. 28. a. What happens to me is my own doing. b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my l i f e is taking. 29. a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do. b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national, as well as on a local level. KEY: (a) -- 2, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 29. (b) -- 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 22, 26, 28. F i l l e r Items -- 1, 8, 14, 19, 24, 27. 112 CATEGORIES IN ROTTER'S INTERNAL-EXTERNAL CONTROL OF REINFORCEMENT SCALE Academic Recognition Reinforcements associated with this category are grades, being perceived as a good student by one's instructor and peers, and doing well on academic tasks. The externally-controlled learner is l i k e l y to attribute these kinds of re-wards to the whims of the instructor, to luck or to fate, while the internally-oriented person would see them as func-tions of how much he studied. Item pairs related to this category are: 5. a) The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense, b) Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happenings. 10. a) In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely i f ever such a thing as an unfair test, b) Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying is really useless. 23. a) Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give, b) There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the grades I get. Social Recognition Obtaining the respect and admiration of others is reflected in this dimension. This category includes the follow-ing pairs of items: 4. a) In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world. b) Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrec-ognized no matter how hard he tries. 11. a) Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has l i t t l e or nothing to do with i t . b) Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time. Love § Affection This category differs from "Social Recognition" in that i t involves the dimension of being accepted and liked by others as an end in i t s e l f and not necessarily as a means of achieving higher goals. The following item pairs are included in this category: 113 7. a) No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you. b) People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with others. 20. a) It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. b) How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are. 26. a) People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly, b) There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, i f they like you, they like you. Dominance Becoming a leader in one's sphere is included in this category. The external person is l i k e l y to attribute his becom-ing a leader to luck, to fate, or to powerful other::. The internal individual is li k e l y to attribute his leadership posi-tion to his own hard work, s k i l l and a b i l i t y . Included in this category are the following item pairs: 6. a) Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader. b) Capable people who f a i l to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities. 16. a) Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place f i r s t , b) Getting people to do the right thing depends upon a b i l i t y , luck has l i t t l e or nothing to do with i t . Social P o l i t i c a l This dimension measures the individual's attitudes about the relationship between his own power and the power of those holding p o l i t i c a l offices. The following pairs of items are included in this category: 3. a) One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough interest in p o l i t i c s . b) There w i l l always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them. 12. a) The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions. b) This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the l i t t l e guy can do about i t . 17. a) As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are victims of forces we can neither understand nor control, b) By taking an active part in p o l i t i c a l and social affairs the people can control world events. 114 22. a) With enough effort we can wipe out p o l i t i c a l corruption, b) It is d i f f i c u l t for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office. 29. a) Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do. b) In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national, as well as on a local level. General Life Philosophy This dimension transcends specific situational categories and pertains to a generalized attitude about the relationship between one's own efforts and the occurrence of positive or negative events. The following pairs of items are included in this class : 2. 9. 13. 18 21 25. 28. a, b] a.] b; a] b" b; a' a, b" a b' Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make. I have often found that what is going to happen w i l l happen. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite course of action. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings. There really is no such thing as "luck". In the long run, the bad things that happen to use are balanced by the good ones. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of a b i l i t y , ignorance, laziness, or a l l three. Many times I feel that I have l i t t l e influence over the things that happen to me. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my l i f e . What happens to me is my own doing. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my l i f e is taking. 115 A P P E N D I X B Page 1. The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Survey 116 2: R e l i a b i l i t y Coefficients of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Survey 117 116 THE GATES-MacGINITIE READING SURVEYS1 Forms E and F both consist of three parts: Speed and Accuracy, Vocabulary and Comprehension. The Speed and Accuracy Test provides an objective measure of how rapidly students can read with understanding. This test contains 36 short paragraphs of relatively uniform d i f f i -culty. Each paragraph ends in a question or incomplete state-ment, and a choice of four words follows. The student's task is to choose the word that, according to the paragraph, best answers the question or completes the statement. The number of paragraphs he completes in the four minutes allowed provides a measure of how rapidly he reads. The time limit for this test has been made short enough that few students w i l l be able to finish a l l of the items. The Vocabulary Test samples the student's reading vocab-ulary. This test contains 50 items. Each item has a test word followed by five other words, one of which is similar in meaning to the test word. The student's task is to choose the word that means most nearly the same as the test word. The f i r s t items are composed of relatively easy and commonly used words. The words gradually become less common and more d i f f i -cult. The Comprehension Test measures the student's a b i l i t y to read complete prose passages with understanding. It contains 21 passages in which a total of 52 blank spaces have been introduced. For each blank space a choice of five completions is offered. The student must decide which one of the five completions best conforms to the meaning of the whole passage. The f i r s t passages are relatively simply. The later ones be-come progressively more d i f f i c u l t . The alternate-form r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients reported below were obtained by administering one form of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test on one day and a second form on another day to a sample of approximately 40,000 pupils in thirty-eight communities in the United States. The s p l i t -half r e l i a b i l i t i e s shown in the tables were obtained on the same communities for which alternate-form r e l i a b i l i t i e s are reported, using whichever test form was taken f i r s t by each student. From Arthur I. Gates § Walter H. MacGinitie, Gates-MacGinitie  Reading Tests, Technical Manual, (New YorF: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1965), p. 8. 117 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF GATES-MacGINITIE READING TESTS Alternate-Form Split-Half Grade Subtest Re l i a b i l i t y R e l i a b i l i t y 7 Vocabulary .78 .88 Comprehension .81 .94 Speed No. Attempted .69 Speed No. Correct .70 — 8 Vocabulary .80 .89 Comprehension .81 .93 Speed No. Attempted .72 Speed No. Correct .76 — 9 Vocabulary .83 .88 Comprehension .80 .89 Speed No. Attempted .68 Speed No. Correct .77 10 Vocabulary .90 .92 Comprehension .91 .93 Speed No. Attempted .73 Speed No. Correct .78 — 11 Vocabulary .92 .94 Comprehension .88 .95 Speed No. Attempted .64 Speed No. Correct .81 — 12 Vocabulary .88 .93 Comprehension .85 .93 Speed No. Attempted .78 Speed No. Correct .80 118 A P P E N D I X C Page 1. I n i t i a l Test on "Techniques of Job-Seeking" . . . 119 2. Table XXII PARTITION OF VARIANCE AMONG FACTORS 133 3. Table XXIII ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN EACH FACTOR . . . 134 4. Pre-Test on "Techniques of Job-Seeking" 137 5. Post-Test on "Techniques of Job-Seeking" 141 119 I N I T I A L T E S T TECHNIQUES OF JOB-SEEKING DIRECTIONS: Following are a number of statements related to f i n d i n g a job. Each statement consists of four a l t e r n a t i v e s l e t t e r e d a_, b_, c_, and d_. Please select the ONE statement (and only one) which you feel is most accurate, and CIRCLE it. For example, look at the following statement: 1. Placing an advertisement in the "Job Wanted" column is generally most useful if a) you have not been able to get a job through Canada © Manpower. you are q u a l i f i e d in some outstanding way for a kind of work that is somewhat out of the ordinary. c) you are looking for a top-level executive p o s i t i o n . d) you are an u n s k i l l e d worker. You may answer questions even when you are not completely sure that your answers are correct. In such cases, i n t e l l i g e n t consideration of the choices provided may help you to gain marks. HOWEVER, you should AVOID WILD GUESSING as t h i s may result in a reduction in your score. Give each question careful thought, but work as quickly as you can. If you find a question too d i f f i c u l t , do not spend too much time on i t . Pass on to the next ones, and return l a t e r to any that you have missed. 1. Most employers s e l e c t someone f o r a job by a) a n a l y s i n g s t a n d a r d job a p p l i c a t i o n forms. b) p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s . c) c o n s u l t i n g Canada Manpower. d) t e s t i n g a p p l i c a n t s . 2. What i s the most common m i s t a k e made by a p e r s o n out o f -work? a) A s k i n g f o r a job r a t h e r than a g g r e s s i v e l y s e l l i n g h i s s e r v i c e s . b) W a i t i n g f o r someone to p r o v i d e him w i t h a j o b . c) P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and w a i t i n g f o r tomorrow. d) A d v e r t i s i n g h i s s e r v i c e s o n l y i n the newspaper. 3. P u b l i c and p r i v a t e employment a g e n c i e s can h e l p you i n j o b s e e k i n g i f you a) camp on t h e i r d o o r s t e p u n t i l they f i n d you a j o b . b) l e t them h a n d l e your s i t u a t i o n t o t a l l y . c) c o n s i d e r them as j u s t one job p r o s p e c t . d) g i v e them p l e n t y o f time to f i n d you a j o b . 120 4. When p r e s e n t i n g y o u r s e l f to a p r o s p e c t i v e employer, i t i s b e s t to a) go w i t h a f r i e n d o r r e l a t i v e . b) go i n a s m a l l group o f two or t h r e e . c) go a l o n e . d) go w i t h someone who w i l l a c t as a r e f e r e n c e f o r you. 5. One o f the most i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s f o r not c o n f i n i n g a job s e a r c h j u s t t o j o b s s i m i l a r t o ones you have done i n the p a s t i s a) t h e r e may not be much a v a i l a b l e i n t h a t a r e a . b) i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t you are i n f l e x i b l e . c) the j o b s you had p r e v i o u s l y may not have bro u g h t out your b e s t a b i l i t i e s . d) i t ge t s h a r d e r t o change t o d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f j o b s as you get o l d e r . 6. F a i l u r e t o get a job i s o f t e n a t t r i b u t a b l e t o a) the a p p l i c a n t ' s l i m i t e d e d u c a t i o n . b) the a p p l i c a n t ' s l i m i t e d work e x p e r i e n c e r e c o r d . c) the a p p l i c a n t ' s a t t i t u d e t h a t he won't get the j o b anyway. d) the a p p l i c a n t ' s r e c o r d o f h o l d i n g many j o b s over a s h o r t p e r i o d o f t i m e . 7. I n f o r m a t i o n on the names of companies i n v a r i o u s l i n e s o f b u s i n e s s i n your community can be o b t a i n e d by a) g o i n g t o a p r i v a t e employment agency. b] c o n d u c t i n g a s u r v e y o f b u s i n e s s e s i n the downtown a r e a . c] r e a d i n g the newspaper. d) c o n s u l t i n g the c l a s s i f i e d s e c t i o n o f the t e l e p h o n e d i r e c t o r y . 8. Of a l l the q u a l i t i e s you s h o u l d b r i n g t o an i n t e r v i e w , most employers agree t h a t the most i m p o r t a n t one i s a) a t t i t u d e -- a w i l l i n g n e s s to work h a r d . b) a good p e r s o n a l appearance. c) i n i t i a t i v e . d) a good work e x p e r i e n c e r e c o r d . 9 . You s h o u l d l i s t your h o b b i e s on your resume* i n o r d e r to a) demonstrate your b r e a d t h o f i n t e r e s t s . b) h e l p you e s t a b l i s h a good r a p p o r t w i t h the i n t e r v i e w e r . c) add body t o your q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r the j o b . d) demonstrate i n t e r e s t s you have beyond the job i t s e l f . 10. From the employer's vantage p o i n t , the most e f f e c t i v e method o f o b t a i n i n g an employee i s a) Canada Manpower. b) newspaper a d v e r t i s e m e n t s . c) w a l k - i n s . d) t r a d e u n i o n s . 121 11. When d o i n g a s e l f - s k i l l a n a l y s i s , you s h o u l d c a r e f u l l y cons i d e r a) t h o s e t h i n g s t h a t you r e a l l y l i k e to do. b) t h i n g s t h a t you l i k e and can do w e l l , i n a d d i t i o n to t h i n g s you d i s l i k e d o i n g . c) o n l y p r e v i o u s j o b s h e l d . d) o n l y those t h i n g s you can do w e l l . 12. One easy way t o make c e r t a i n t h a t you are p r o p e r l y groomed f o r an i n t e r v i e w i s a) to buy some new c l o t h e s f o r the o c c a s i o n . b) t o c o n s u l t someone i n a m o d e l l i n g s c h o o l . c) to p r e p a r e a l i s t o f good p o i n t s i n grooming and check them b e f o r e l e a v i n g . d) to check what o t h e r s i n the o f f i c e are w e a r i n g a c o u p l e o f days ahead o f t i m e . 13. One o f the most i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s f o r a n a l y s i n g your s h o r t c o m i n g s w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o your q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r a j o b i s t h a t a) you w i l l u n d e r s t a n d your weak p o i n t s i f you don't get the j o b . b) y o u r weak p o i n t s are the v e r y ones the i n t e r v i e w e r w i l l be t r y i n g t o d i s c o v e r . c) i t g i v e s you a chance t o make up a good c o v e r s t o r y . d) i t p r e v e n t s you from b e i n g too s e l f - c o n f i d e n t i n the i n t e r v i e w . 14. An open a d v e r t i s e m e n t i n the "Help Wanted" column i s one t h a t a) appears e v e r y day f o r a t l e a s t a week. b) a d v e r t i s e s f o r e i t h e r men or women. c) appears a t the b e g i n n i n g o f the column. d) i n c l u d e s the name and address of the employer and a j o b d e s c r i p t i o n . 15. You can h e l p y o u r s e l f t o communicate more e f f e c t i v e l y d u r i n g an i n t e r v i e w by a) r e a d i n g the c o m p e t i t i o n f o l d e r . b) r e h e a r s i n g y o u r s e l f f o r i t . c) v i s i t i n g the r e c e p t i o n i s t b e f o r e h a n d f o r d e t a i l s . d) g o i n g f o r i n t e r v i e w s f o r j o b s you don't want. 16. A f u n damental q u e s t i o n t o c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g the type o f j o b you are b e s t q u a l i f i e d to f i l l i s a) whether you s h o u l d t a c k l e a j o b f o r which you have no e x p e r i e n c e . b) whether you work b e s t w i t h p e o p l e or t h i n g s . c) whether the job i s headed toward e l i m i n a t i o n . d) whether you s h o u l d t a k e any job you're o f f e r e d . 122 17. I f the i n t e r v i e w e r i s h a v i n g d i f f i c u l t y i n t h i n k i n g o f q u e s t i o n s t o ask you beyond the r e g u l a r ones, t h i s u s u a l l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t a) i t i s time to t e r m i n a t e the i n t e r v i e w . b) he i s new a t the job h i m s e l f . c) you have got the j o b . d) he i s h a v i n g a d i f f i c u l t time f o r m u l a t i n g a d e f i n i t e o p i n i o n o f you. 18. The b e s t way t o get p a s t s u b o r d i n a t e s i n o r d e r t o see the r i g h t p e r s o n f o r the job i s a) t o f i n d out the name of the r i g h t p e r s o n ahead of time and r e f e r t o him when you meet the r e c e p t i o n i s t . b) t o t e l l the r e c e p t i o n i s t you're a f r i e n d o f the e m p l o y e r ' s . c) t o a r r i v e on the p r e m i s e s when the r e c e p t i o n i s t i s away from h e r desk. d) t o a r r i v e on the p r e m i s e s l o o k i n g w ell-groomed. 19. The b l i n d a d v e r t i s e m e n t i n the "Help Wanted" column i s one t h a t a) i s p l a c e d i n an obscure p o s i t i o n . b) does not i n c l u d e the s a l a r y b e i n g o f f e r e d . c) does not i n c l u d e a job d e s c r i p t i o n . d) d i r e c t s r e p l i e s to a box number. 20. In job s e e k i n g , a l e t t e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n s h o u l d be used a) a t a l l t i m e s . b) o n l y when the company has no a p p l i c a t i o n form to f i l l out f o r employment. c) o n l y when the p r o s p e c t i v e employer i s l o c a t e d i n a d i s t a n t p l a c e . d) i n a n s w e r i n g b l i n d a d v e r t i s e m e n t s and when i t i s d i f f i c u l t to c o n t a c t the r i g h t p e r s o n . 21. When the employer s t e e r s the i n t e r v i e w onto g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n and away from c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the j o b i n q u e s t i o n , you must a v o i d a) l e t t i n g down the b a r s and t a l k i n g too f r e e l y . b) l u l l s i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n . c) s a y i n g a n y t h i n g about the j o b . d) c h a n g i n g the d i r e c t i o n o f the i n t e r v i e w . 22. B e f o r e g i v i n g the names of p e o p l e as r e f e r e n c e s i n a p p l y -i n g f o r a j o b , you s h o u l d a) check t h a t you have t h e i r c o r r e c t a d d r e s s e s . b) ask t h e i r p e r m i s s i o n to use them as r e f e r e n c e s . c) f i n d out what k i n d o f a l e t t e r they would w r i t e f o r you. d) go o v er w i t h them the p o i n t s you want i n c l u d e d i n the l e t t e r . 123 23. The major advantage o f advanced p r e p a r a t i o n f o r an i n t e r v i e w i s t h a t a) i t g i v e s you a chance to overcome nervous h a b i t s . b) i t e n a b l e s you to f i g u r e out what the employer wants to h e a r . c) i t e n a b l e s you to t a k e c o n t r o l of the i n t e r v i e w away from the i n t e r v i e w e r . d) i t e n a b l e s you to p l a c e emphasis on t h o s e q u a l i f i -c a t i o n s you p a r t i c u l a r l y w i s h to b r i n g o u t . 24. Your name, a d d r e s s , and t e l e p h o n e number s h o u l d be i n -c l u d e d i n y o u r resume a) a t a l l t i m e s . b) o n l y when i t i s not accompanied by a l e t t e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n . c) o n l y i f you l i v e i n a d e s i r a b l e s e c t i o n o f the c i t y . d) o n l y when no i n t e r v i e w s are b e i n g g i v e n . 25. F o r making the f i n a l d e c i s i o n on who i s t o be h i r e d f o r a j o b , most employers use a) s t a n d a r d job a p p l i c a t i o n forms. b) achievement t e s t s . c) p e r s o n a l a p p r a i s a l . d) the recommendations of r e f e r r a l a g e n c i e s . 26. Resumes o f e x p e r i e n c e and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s are u s e f u l f o r a) anyone s e e k i n g employment. b) o n l y t h o s e who are l o o k i n g f o r management p o s i t i o n s . c) o n l y those who can w r i t e w e l l . d) o n l y those who want c l e r i c a l j o b s . 27. You can b e s t d e t e r m i n e whether your p r e f e r e n c e s f o r j o b s have changed over time by a) t a l k i n g w i t h y o u r f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s . b) c o u n t i n g up the number of j o b s you have h e l d . c) a s e l f - s k i l l a n a l y s i s . d) c o u n t i n g up the number o f t h i n g s you have done s u c c e s s f u l l y . 28. L e t t e r s o f a p p l i c a t i o n s h o u l d be w r i t t e n on a) s t a n d a r d 8 V x 14" s t a t i o n e r y . b) p e r s o n a l i z e d s t a t i o n e r y . c) s t a t i o n e r y l a r g e enough t o f i t a l l i n f o r m a t i o n on one page. d) s t a n d a r d 8V x 11" s t a t i o n e r y . 29. The most e f f e c t i v e way o f o b t a i n i n g a job i s u s u a l l y a) t h r o u g h r e g i s t e r i n g w i t h Canada Manpower. b) t h r o u g h u n i o n a f f i l i a t i o n s . c) t h r o u g h " b l i t z i n g " a l l p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s o f employment d) t h r o u g h newspaper a d v e r t i s e m e n t s . 124 30. One o f the most common m i s t a k e s o f job s e e k e r s i n i n t e r v i e w s i s t h a t a) they w a i t f o r the employer t o take the i n i t i a t i v e i n d r a g g i n g out o f them t h e i r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . b) t h e y s i t down b e f o r e they have been asked t o . c) t h e y a v o i d l o o k i n g a t the i n t e r v i e w e r w h i l e t a l k i n g . d) they t e n d t o " u n d e r s e l l " t h e i r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r the j o b . 31. You can b e s t demonstrate your i n i t i a t i v e d u r i n g an i n t e r v i e w by a) o f f e r i n g t o shake hands and t a k e c o n t r o l of the d i s c u s s i o n . b) s u g g e s t i n g t o the i n t e r v i e w e r changes i n h i s p r o d u c t . c) d r e s s i n g i n the l a t e s t f a s h i o n . d) l e a r n i n g as much as p o s s i b l e about the company ahead of t i m e . 32. I f you have changed j o b s f r e q u e n t l y , how can you b e s t a v o i d c r e a t i n g the wrong i m p r e s s i o n on the p r o s p e c t i v e employer? a) By o n l y t a l k i n g about the j o b s you have h e l d f o r the l o n g e s t p e r i o d o f t i m e . b) By t e l l i n g the employer how d e t e r m i n e d you are t o s e t t l e down i n a permanent job a t t h i s t i m e . c) By e m p h a s i z i n g the w e l l - r o u n d e d e x p e r i e n c e the v a r i o u s j o b s have g i v e n you. d) By t e l l i n g the employer e x a c t l y why you l e f t the o t h e r j o b s . 33. W h i l e w a i t i n g f o r an i n t e r v i e w , you may most e f f e c t i v e l y make use of your time by a) m e m o r i z i n g the m a t e r i a l i n your resume". b) g e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on q u e s t i o n s asked o f a p p l i c a n t s i n t e r v i e w e d b e f o r e you. c) o b s e r v i n g a n y t h i n g g o i n g on i n the o f f i c e t h a t may be used t o your advantage i n the i n t e r v i e w . d) making c e r t a i n t h a t your p e r s o n a l appearance i s s a t i s f a c t o r y . 34. The a d v e r t i s e m e n t u s u a l l y r e c e i v i n g the l a r g e s t number of a p p l i c a n t s f o r a job i s a) the b l i n d a d v e r t i s e m e n t . b) the b i g g e s t a d v e r t i s e m e n t . c) the open a d v e r t i s e m e n t . d) the one t h a t i n c l u d e s s a l a r y s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . 35. In a c i t y w i t h a work f o r c e o f 400,000, a p p r o x i m a t e l y what number o f j o b s w i l l be a v a i l a b l e a t a l l t i m e s ? a) 4,000. b) 8,000. c) 12,000. d) 16,000. 125 36. The f i r s t t h i n g you s h o u l d do i n o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e what you are b e s t q u a l i f i e d to do i s a) t a k e a complete i n v e n t o r y o f y o u r s e l f . b) ask former employers what they thought you d i d b e s t . c) ask f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s to make a l i s t o f your good and bad q u a l i t i e s . d) t a k e a j o b p r e f e r e n c e t e s t . 37. In j o b s e e k i n g , the y e l l o w pages of the t e l e p h o n e book may be used e f f e c t i v e l y to a) o b t a i n names o f companies i n v a r i o u s l i n e s o f b u s i -ness i n your t e r r i t o r y . b) l o c a t e a d v e r t i s e m e n t s f o r job v a c a n c i e s . c) get i d e a s on how you might f i t i n t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r company. d) l o c a t e employment a g e n c i e s . 38. I t i s not c o n s i d e r e d i n good t a s t e f o r you t o t a k e the i n i t i a t i v e i n s h a k i n g hands w i t h the p r o s p e c t i v e employer because a) n i n e t y out o f one hundred i n d i v i d u a l s a p p l y i n g f o r j o b s do not shake hands p r o p e r l y . b) i t appears too much l i k e a s l i c k salesman's t e c h n i q u e . c) i t may g i v e the i m p r e s s i o n o f f a m i l i a r i t y . d) handshakes o f t e n r e v e a l your n e r v o u s n e s s . 39. When you are a p p l y i n g f o r your f i r s t j o b , what q u a l i t i e s w i l l the employer be l o o k i n g f o r ? a) a h i g h l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n and e x p e r i e n c e t h a t might i n some way be r e l a t e d to the job i n q u e s t i o n . b) s e r i o u e s n e s s o f i n t e n t i o n s i n g e t t i n g a j o b . c) y o u t h f u l i d e a s f o r i m p r o v i n g h i s company. d) a l e r t n e s s , e v i d e n c e o f i n t e l l i g e n c e , i n i t i a t i v e and e n t h u s i a s m . 40. I f you have changed j o b s f r e q u e n t l y , w h i c h would be the p r e f e r a b l e p r o c e d u r e i n your l e t t e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n ? a) I n c l u d e your r e a s o n s f o r l e a v i n g each j o b . b) Do not i n c l u d e r e a s o n s f o r l e a v i n g and hope t h a t the i n t e r v i e w e r doesn't ask you about i t . c) Make r e f e r e n c e to the number of j o b s you have h e l d and o f f e r t o e x p l a i n the reasons a t the i n t e r v i e w . d) omit the dates o f employment from the l e t t e r . 41. A l a r g e number o f a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r employment are n e v e r c o n s i d e r e d because a) the employer doesn't have time to r e a d t h r o u g h a l l o f them. b) they use e x t r a v a g a n t and b o a s t f u l s t a t e m e n t s . c) the w r i t e r was c a r e l e s s i n s i g n i n g h i s name and the employer cannot d e c i p h e r i t . d) i t seems as though they c o n t a i n i n a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t s . 126 42. In a d d i t i o n to p r o v i d i n g a l i s t o f job v a c a n c i e s , the "Help Wanted" s e c t i o n can g i v e some i n d i c a t i o n o f a) the k i n d s o f j o b s you might be q u a l i f i e d f o r . b) the number of j o b s p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e . c) the ways i n w h i c h you might f i t i n t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f a company. d) the k i n d s o f companies l o c a t e d i n your community. 43. An i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f y o u r p r e p a r a t i o n f o r a job i n t e r -v i ew s h o u l d be a) m e m o r i z i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n i n your resume*. b) a c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f whether you even want the job i f i t i s o f f e r e d t o you. c) g e t t i n g p r a c t i c e i n m e e t i n g p e o p l e . d) a c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l the q u e s t i o n s the i n t e r v i e w e r might r a i s e . 44. The b e s t way t o d e t e r m i n e your q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r a c e r t a i n j o b i s a) t o ask the employer. b) t o compare the a b i l i t i e s and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s you p o s s e s s w i t h the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s r e q u i r e d f o r the job i n q u e s t i o n . c) to t a k e a t e s t r e l a t e d to the job i n q u e s t i o n . d) t o c o n s u l t an employment r e f e r r a l agency such as Canada Manpower. 45. The n a t i o n a l f i g u r e s f o r unemployment may be m i s l e a d i n g because a) they g i v e no i n d i c a t i o n o f the number o f j o b s a v a i l a b l e . b) p e o p l e are always unemployed. c) many j o b s are s e a s o n a l . d) they i n c l u d e p e o p l e who are not a c t i v e l y s e e k i n g employment. 46. The resume" most l i k e l y t o impress your p r o s p e c t i v e employer i s one t h a t a) i n c l u d e s i n d e t a i l e v e r y t h i n g you have e v e r done. b) i s s l a n t e d toward the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f a s p e c i f i c j o b . c) does not i n c l u d e a sub-heading on e x p e c t e d s a l a r y . d) b r i e f l y summarizes e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n . 47. The k i n d o f l e t t e r o f recommendation you s h o u l d show t o a p r o s p e c t i v e employer i s one t h a t a) says o n l y good t h i n g s about you. b) d e a l s o n l y i n g e n e r a l i t i e s . c) g i v e s d e f i n i t e s t r o n g p o i n t s i n p o s i t i v e language. d) i n d i c a t e s the w r i t e r has known you f o r a l o n g t i m e . 127 48. The major purpose of a n a l y s i n g your background, t r a i n i n g and e x p e r i e n c e i s to a) b o o s t your s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e . b) h e l p you d e t e r m i n e what you are b e s t q u a l i f i e d t o do. c) h e l p you r e f r e s h your memory i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r j o b i n t e r v i e w s . d) h e l p you see what q u a l i f i c a t i o n s you are l a c k i n g . 49. The i n f o r m a t i o n i n the resume - s h o u l d i n c l u d e a) whatever you have not put i n the l e t t e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n . b) e d u c a t i o n a l background and work e x p e r i e n c e o n l y . c) p e r s o n a l d a t a , e d u c a t i o n a l r e c o r d s and work e x p e r i e n c e . d) your name, address and t e l e p h o n e number. 50. I t i s c o n s i d e r e d a c c e p t a b l e to smoke d u r i n g the i n t e r v i e w a) a t no t i m e . b) whenever i n v i t e d t o do so. c) a t any time i f i t calms you. d) when the i n t e r v i e w e r does and i n v i t e s you t o do so. 51. A f t e r the i n t e r v i e w , you s h o u l d a) c a l l i m m e d i a t e l y t o f i n d out whether you got the j o b . b) seek a n o t h e r job i m m e d i a t e l y i f you don't know whether you got the j o b . c) send a n o t h e r resume t o keep a t t e n t i o n f o c u s s e d i n your d i r e c t i o n . d) w r i t e a l e t t e r t h a n k i n g the i n t e r v i e w e r f o r h i s a t t e n -t i o n and c o n s i d e r a t i o n to you. 52. I n f o r m a t i o n about the company where you p l a n t o a p p l y f o r a j ob can u s u a l l y be o b t a i n e d by c o n s u l t i n g a) the t e l e p h o n e book. b) the newspaper c) books i n the l o c a l l i b r a r y . d) an employment agency. 53. The b e s t way to p r e v e n t a p r o s p e c t i v e employer from u n d e r e s t i m a t i n g your a b i l i t y , c h a r a c t e r and good q u a l i t i e s i s a) by a p p e a r i n g a g g r e s s i v e and s e l f - c o n f i d e n t i n the i n t e r v i e w . b) by c a r e f u l l y p r e p a r i n g f o r the i n t e r v i e w so q u a l i f i -c a t i o n s may be p r e s e n t e d i n an e f f e c t i v e manner. c) by p r e s e n t i n g him w i t h your resume" to r e a d . d) by t a k i n g the i n i t i a t i v e i n l e a d i n g the d i s c u s s i o n . 54. In one day o f c o n c e n t r a t e d job s e e k i n g , how many resumes s h o u l d you be l i k e l y t o have d i s t r i b u t e d ? a) 1 b) 4 c) 8 d) 12 128 55. In most i n s t a n c e s , the b e s t way to get a job i s t o a) "shop around". b) p l a c e an a d v e r t i s e m e n t i n the "Employment Wanted" s e c t i o n o f the newspaper. c) l e a v e your name w i t h Canada Manpower. d) make j o b - s e e k i n g a f u l l - t i m e j o b i n i t s e l f . 56. In a p p l y i n g f o r a job t h r o u g h an a d v e r t i s e m e n t d i r e c t i n g r e p l i e s t o a box number, which s a l u t a t i o n s h o u l d be used? a) To Whom I t May Concern: b) Dear S i r : c) Dear P e r s o n n e l Manager: d) Gentlemen: 57. When you are j o b s e e k i n g , you s h o u l d u s u a l l y send your resume t o a) employers who p l a c e a d v e r t i s e m e n t s i n the newspaper. b) o n l y those employers who h i r e p e o p l e w i t h y o u r p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l s . c) o n l y to employers who are u n i o n i z e d . d) o n l y t o employers who r e q u e s t i t . 58. The f i r s t p o i n t on w h i c h the employer u s u a l l y judges you i s a) the way you t a l k . b) p e r s o n a l appearance. c) y o ur p e r s o n a l i t y . d) y o u r t r a i n i n g and e x p e r i e n c e . 59. Upon e n t e r i n g the p r o s p e c t i v e employer's p r e s e n c e , the f i r s t t h i n g you s h o u l d do i s a) shake hands and i n t r o d u c e y o u r s e l f . b) g r e e t him p l e a s a n t l y and g i v e him y o u r name. c) s t a n d q u i e t l y u n t i l you are spoken t o . d) i n t r o d u c e y o u r s e l f and i m m e d i a t e l y ask about job o p e n i n g s . 60. I f the i n t e r v i e w e r seems u n n e c e s s a r i l y i n q u i s i t i v e o r appears d o u b t f u l o f y o u r s t a t e m e n t s , what s h o u l d you do? a) Repeat what you have s a i d . b) L e t him know t h a t you f e e l he i s i n t r u d i n g on your p e r s o n a l l i f e . c) M a i n t a i n a s t r i c t l y c o u r t e o u s and p l e a s a n t a t t i t u d e . d) Make a p o l i t e e f f o r t t o change the d i r e c t i o n o f the i n t e r v i e w . 61. The term " u n s o l i c i t e d l e t t e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n " i s used to r e f e r to a l e t t e r w r i t t e n a) when a d e f i n i t e job vacancy i s known t o e x i s t . b) a s k i n g f o r i n f o r m a t i o n about p o s s i b l e j o b o p e n i n g s . c) g i v i n g v e r y e a r n e s t r e a s o n s f o r n e e d i n g a j o b . d) when i t i s not known i f a job vacancy e x i s t s . 129 62. An a d v e r t i s e m e n t which d i r e c t s r e p l i e s t o a box number i s c a l l e d a) an open a d v e r t i s e m e n t . b) a s o l i c i t e d a d v e r t i s e m e n t . c) a d i s g u i s e d a d v e r t i s e m e n t . d) a b l i n d a d v e r t i s e m e n t . 63. The l e t t e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n accompanying a resume s h o u l d c o n t a i n a) a l l o f the i n f o r m a t i o n i n the resume". b) o n l y a r e q u e s t t h a t your j o b a p p l i c a t i o n be c o n s i d e r e d . c) o n l y i n f o r m a t i o n n ot c o n t a i n e d i n the resume. d) a summary o f the i n f o r m a t i o n i n the resume". 64. To w r i t e an e f f e c t i v e answer t o an a d v e r t i s e m e n t , you s h o u l d a) i n c l u d e i n d e t a i l your q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i n case the employer i s not c o n d u c t i n g i n t e r v i e w s . b) g i v e s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n i n answer t o the q u e s t i o n s i m p l i e d i n the a d v e r t i s e m e n t . c) c o n c e n t r a t e your e f f o r t s on p r o d u c i n g a l e t t e r t h a t w i l l a t t r a c t a t t e n t i o n . d) f i r s t w r i t e to the employer f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a -t i o n about the j o b . 65. Even i n p e r i o d s o f h i g h unemployment, the p e r c e n t a g e o f j o b s a v a i l a b l e i s u s u a l l y a) 1 p e r c e n t . b) 4 p e r c e n t . c) 8 p er c e n t . d) 10 p e r c e n t . 66. The term " s o l i c i t e d l e t t e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n " i s used t o r e f e r t o a l e t t e r w r i t t e n a) when a d e f i n i t e j o b vacancy i s known to e x i s t . b) t o accompany the f i r m ' s j o b a p p l i c a t i o n form. c) when you are too f a r away to go f o r an i n t e r v i e w . d) t o summarize the c o n t e n t s o f the resume". 67. An e f f e c t i v e way t o p o l i s h up your i n t e r v i e w p r e s e n t a t i o n i n advance i s t o a) memorize a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n on your resum£. b) go f o r i n t e r v i e w s even f o r j o b s you're not i n t e r e s t e d i n o b t a i n i n g . c) w r i t e down a l i s t o f a l l the q u e s t i o n s you t h i n k you c o u l d be asked. d) engage i n a r o l e p l a y i n g e x e r c i s e w i t h a f r i e n d . 130 68. In an i n t e r v i e w i t i s e s s e n t i a l to have a t your f i n g e r -t i p s the dates o f p r e v i o u s j o b s because a) t h i s i s the q u e s t i o n most f r e q u e n t l y asked i n an i n t e r v i e w . b) f o g g i n e s s o f memory may be i n t e r p r e t e d as f a l s i f i -c a t i o n o f your employment r e c o r d . c) t h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t you are a q u i c k and i n t e l l i g e n t p e r s o n . d) most employers don't have too much time f o r i n t e r -v i e w i n g . 69. Which of the f o l l o w i n g c l o s i n g s e n t e n c e s i n a l e t t e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n would be most e f f e c t i v e ? a) " I can be r e a c h e d a t 744-5678 between 2 and 4 p.m. on Thursday i f you c a r e t o make an appointment w i t h me f o r an i n t e r v i e w " . b) "Hoping to h e a r from you a t your e a r l i e s t conven-i e n c e , I r e m a i n " c) "May I d i s c u s s my q u a l i f i c a t i o n s w i t h you a t your c o n v e n i e n c e ? My t e l e p h o n e number i s 744-5678". d) " I ' l l c a l l you n e x t Thursday t o see i f we might get t o g e t h e r to e x p l o r e job p o s s i b i l i t i e s f u r t h e r " . 70. The advent o f a u t o m a t i o n and l a b o r - s a v i n g d e v i c e s has caused a) a h i g h r a t e o f unemployment. b) many j o b s to be e l i m i n a t e d . c) more j o b s t o be c r e a t e d than e l i m i n a t e d . d) g r e a t e r c o m p e t i t i o n f o r a l l job o p e n i n g s . 71. P e o p l e f r e q u e n t l y end up i n j o b s f o r w h i c h they are not s u i t e d when a) they t a k e the f i r s t job o f f e r e d them. b) they do not c a r r y out a thorough s e l f - s k i l l a n a l y s i s . c) j o b s are s c a r c e . d) they have no p a s t e x p e r i e n c e . 72. S i n c e an employer o f t e n asks why you f e e l t h a t h i s comp-any i s the p l a c e t o a p p l y f o r a j o b , p a r t o f your i n t e r -view p r e p a r a t i o n s h o u l d i n c l u d e a) r e a d i n g the job c o m p e t i t i o n f o l d e r . b) m a t c h i n g your q u a l i f i c a t i o n s w i t h the j o b s p e c i f i c a t i o n s c) g e t t i n g ready f o r u n e x p e c t e d q u e s t i o n s . d) f i n d i n g out i n f o r m a t i o n about the company. 73. The most c r u c i a l p a r t o f the job i n t e r v i e w i s a) the c o n c l u s i o n when you f i n d out i f you got the j o b . b) the time spent d i s c u s s i n g your q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . c) the f i r s t f i v e m inutes when you make your i n i t i a l p r e s e n t a t i o n . d) the time spent d i s c u s s i n g s a l a r y e x p e c t a t i o n s . 131 74. In s e t t i n g out e d u c a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i n a resume", i t i s customary t o l i s t academic q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a) w i t h the most r e c e n t f i r s t . b) w i t h the most r e c e n t l a s t . c) w i t h the h i g h e s t achievements f i r s t . d) i n whatever o r d e r i s most a t t r a c t i v e . 75. Which of the f o l l o w i n g o pening s e n t e n c e s i n a l e t t e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n would be most e f f e c t i v e ? a) "Here i t i s , S i r ! That e f f i c i e n t , e x p e r i e n c e d bookkeeper you're l o o k i n g f o r " . b) " I am w r i t i n g t o a p p l y f o r a job as a bookkeeper". c) " E n c l o s e d p l e a s e f i n d my resume of q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r the b o o k k e e p i n g job a d v e r t i s e d i n the F e b r u a r y 12, 1972 e d i t i o n o f the Vancouver Sun." d) "With my s c h o o l major i n a c c o u n t i n g and a summer o f e x p e r i e n c e as a bookkeeper f o r Renton's, I b e l i e v e I am q u a l i f i e d to f i l l the b o o k k e e p i n g p o s i t i o n you a d v e r t i s e d i n the Vancouver Sun on F e b r u a r y 12, 1972". 76. In an i n t e r v i e w , your opening s t a t e m e n t s are e s p e c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t because a) t h e y h e l p the employer t o f o r m u l a t e h i s s i d e o f the i n t e r v i e w . b) t h e y g i v e your r e a s o n s f o r a p p l y i n g f o r the j o b . c) many employers have c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e i r a b i l i t y t o form an a c c u r a t e a p p r a i s a l o f you on the b a s i s o f a f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n . d) time i s p r o b a b l y l i m i t e d f o r the employer. 77. The p r o b l e m o f l o c a t i n g the r i g h t man t o meet i n the company may be overcome by a) c a l l i n g the company s w i t c h b o a r d o p e r a t o r and a s k i n g the name o f the p e r s o n who does the h i r i n g . b) w r i t i n g t o the company and a s k i n g f o r the name o f the p e r s o n who does the h i r i n g . c) c h e c k i n g i n the t e l e p h o n e book. d) v i s i t i n g the company pr e m i s e s and a s k i n g the r e c e p t i o n i s t who does the h i r i n g . 78. How can you b e s t a v o i d unemployment f r u s t r a t i o n ? a) By j o i n i n g w i t h o t h e r unemployed p e r s o n s . b) By h a v i n g your husband/wife go to work i n the meantime c) By k e e p i n g up your p e r s o n a l appearance. d) By r e m a i n i n g away from o t h e r unemployed p e r s o n s . 79. You are u s u a l l y q u i c k e r and more a c c u r a t e i n f i l l i n g out j ob a p p l i c a t i o n forms when a) your p r o s p e c t i v e employer i s not i n the same room. b) you have a p p l i e d f o r many j o b s . c) you have a p r e p a r e d resume" to r e f e r t o . d) they have l a r g e p r i n t e d d i r e c t i o n s to f o l l o w . 132 80. In s e t t i n g out your work e x p e r i e n c e i n a resume, i t i s customary t o l i s t a) o n l y j o b s r e l a t e d t o the one b e i n g a p p l i e d f o r . b) j o b s i n o r d e r s t a r t i n g w i t h the f i r s t one h e l d . c) the job you h e l d l o n g e s t f i r s t . d) j o b s i n o r d e r s t a r t i n g w i t h the most r e c e n t one h e l d . KEY: (a) -- 2, 8 , 9, 18, 21 , 24, 30 , 36 , 37 , 45 , 66 , 73, 74 , 77. (b) -- 1 , 11 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 22 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 53 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 65, 68, 71, 80. (c) -- 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 38, 40, 41, 47, 49, 52, 54, 60, 64, 67, 70, 73, 76, 79. (d) -- 7, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26, 28, 31, 35, 39, 43, 50, 51, 55, 56, 61, 62, 63, 72, 75, 78. 133 Table XXII PARTITION OF VARIANCE AMONG FACTORS Cumulative % Factor % Variance Variance No. Factor Label Accounted for Accounted for 1 Replying to Job Ads 10.71 10.71 2 Resume Information 3.93 14.64 3 Interview Preparation 3.72 18.36 4 Failure to Get a Job 3.52 21.88 5 The Job Interview 3.12 25.00 6 No. of Jobs Available 2.98 27.98 7 Sending Out Resumes 2.86 30.84 8 Interview Etiquette 2.65 33.49 9 The Resume 2.61 36.10 10 Setting Out Qualifica-tions in Resume 2.54 38.64 11 Automation 2.33 40.97 12 Active Job-Seeking 2.17 43.14 13 Qualities Employers Seek 2.14 45.28 14 S e l f - S k i l l Analysis 2.11 47.39 15 Stationery 2.04 49.43 ' 16 Application Letters 1.96 51.39 17 Purpose of S e l f - S k i l l 1.86 53.25 Analysis 18 General Job-seeking Information 1.78 55.03 19 Solicited Applications 1.66 55.69 20 Analyzing Qualifications 1.64 58.33 Table XXIII ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN EACH FACTOR 134 Item Factor ^ No. Item Name Loading h FACTOR 1 -- Replying to Job Ads 14. "Open" advertisement information .84 .96 20. Use of application letter in replying to ads .74 .91 42. Information from "Help Wanted" column .72 .92 62. "Open" advertisement defined .66 .92 19. "Blind" advertisement defined .56 .92 10. How employers obtain employees .52 .93 56. Salutation for replying to box numbers .52 .84 29. Ways of obtaining jobs .51 .87 34. Response to "open" advertisements .47 .83 64. Slanting letter to advertisement .46 .83 FACTOR 2 -- Resume Information 49. Resume" information -.51 .75 FACTOR 3 -- Interview Preparation 67. Listing possible questions .68 .89 15. Rehearsing .60 .80 43. Considering the interviewer's questions .51 .92 72. Finding out information about company .41 .82 FACTOR 4 -- Failure to Get a Job 60. Interviewer doubts statements .62 .82 6. Applicant's attitude -.43 .85 FACTOR 5 -- The Job Interview 25. Personal appraisal .70 .85 51. Thanking the interviewer .50 .91 68. Information readily available .45 .74 15. Communicating in interview .43 .91 FACTOR 6 -- Number of Jobs Available 35. Number of jobs available -.76 .89 FACTOR 7 -- Sending out Resume's 54. Number of resume's to be distributed daily .44 .77 57. Who to send resume's to .40 .78 (continued) 135 Item Factor 2 No. Item Name Loading h FACTOR 8 -- Interview Etiquette 50. Smoking during interview .52 .76 59. Entering the employer's presence .51 .81 FACTOR 9 -- The Resume" 79. Use of resume* in f i l l i n g out job applications .74 .91 49. Resume information .54 .75 63. Letter accompanying resume" .43 .82 FACTOR 10 -- Setting out Qualifications in Resume" 74. Listing educational qualifications in resume" .54 .73 46. Slanting resume to job requirements .48 .79 26. Use of resumes .47 .85 47. Reference letters .40 .90 FACTOR 11 -- Automation 70. Automation as i t affects job prospects -.69 .84 FACTOR 12 -- Active Job-Seeking 29. Job-seeking as a full-time job in i t s e l f -.73 .87 FACTOR 13 -- Qualities Employers Seek 39. Qualities employers seek .72 .88 FACTOR 14 -- Se l f - S k i l l Analysis 36. Step one in job-seeking .51 .86 11. What to consider in a s e l f - s k i l l analysis .60 .82 FACTOR 15 -- Stationery 28. Proper stationery for application letters .68 .77 FACTOR 16 -- Application Letters 61. "Unsolicited" letters .54 .87 63. Letter accompanying resume .46 .79 64. Answering an advertisement .42 .86 12. Grooming .40 .75 FACTOR 17 -- Purpose of S e l f - S k i l l Analysis 48. Purpose of s e l f - s k i l l analysis .66 .92 (continued) 136 Item Factor No. Item Name Loading h FACTOR 18 -- General Job-Seeking Information 38. Shaking hands in interview .56 .89 45. Figures on unemployment .45 .86 1. How employers select employees .42 .76 21. Avoiding interview p i t f a l l s .42 .79 FACTOR 19 -- Solicited Application Letters 66. Solicited Application Letters .73 .81 FACTOR 20 -- Analyzing Qualifications 44. Determining one's job qualifications .55 .82 39. Qualities employers seek .46 .87 137 P R E - T E S T TECHNIQUES OF JOB-SEEKING DIRECTIONS: Following are a number of statements related to f i n d i n g a job. Each statement consists of four a l t e r n a t i v e s l e t t e r e d a_, b_, c_, and d. Please select the ONE statement (and only one) which you feel is most accurate, and CIRCLE i t . For example, look at the f o l l o w i n g statement: 1. Placing an advertisement in the "Job Wanted" column is generally most useful if you have not been able to get a job through Canada Manpower. you are q u a l i f i e d in some outstanding way for a kind of work that is somewhat out of the ordinary. you are looking for a top-level executive p o s i t i o n , you are an u n s k i l l e d worker. You may answer questions even when you are not completely sure that your answers are correct. In such cases, i n t e l l i g e n t consideration of the choices provided may help you to gain marks. HOWEVER, you should AVOID WILD GUESSING as t h i s may r e s u l t in a reduction in your score. Give each question careful thought, but work as quickly as you can. If you find a question too d i f f i c u l t , do not spend too much time on i t . Pass on to the next ones, and return l a t e r to any that you have missed. a) Q c) d) The most e f f e c t i v e way o f o b t a i n i n g a j o b i s u s u a l l y a) t h r o u g h r e g i s t e r i n g w i t h Canada Manpower. b) t h r o u g h u n i o n a f f i l i a t i o n s . c) t h r o u g h " b l i t z i n g " a l l p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s o f employment. d) t h r o u g h newspaper a d v e r t i s e m e n t s . The f i r s t p o i n t on w h i c h the employer u s u a l l y judges you i s a) the way you t a l k . b) p e r s o n a l appearance. c) your p e r s o n a l i t y . d) your t r a i n i n g and e x p e r i e n c e . The f i r s t t h i n g you s h o u l d do i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e what you are b e s t q u a l i f i e d to do i s a) t a k e a complete i n v e n t o r y o f y o u r s e l f . b) ask f o r m e r employers what they thought you d i d b e s t . c) ask f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s t o make a l i s t o f your good and bad q u a l i t i e s . d) t a k e a j o b p r e f e r e n c e t e s t . 138 When the employer s t e e r s the i n t e r v i e w onto g e n e r a l d i s -c u s s i o n and away from c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the job i n ques-t i o n , you must a v o i d a) l e t t i n g down the b a r s and t a l k i n g too f r e e l y . b) l u l l s i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n . c) s a y i n g a n y t h i n g about the j o b . d) c h a n g i n g the d i r e c t i o n o f the i n t e r v i e w . An e f f e c t i v e way t o p o l i s h up your i n t e r v i e w p r e s e n t a t i o n i n advance i s t o a) memorize a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n on your resume". b) go f o r i n t e r v i e w s even f o r j o b s you're not i n t e r e s t e d i n o b t a i n i n g . c) w r i t e down a l i s t o f a l l the q u e s t i o n s you t h i n k you c o u l d be asked. d) engage i n a r o l e p l a y i n g e x e r c i s e w i t h a f r i e n d . F a i l u r e t o get a j o b i s o f t e n a t t r i b u t a b l e t o a) the a p p l i c a n t ' s l i m i t e d e d u c a t i o n . b) the a p p l i c a n t ' s a t t i t u d e t h a t he won't get the j o b anyway. c) the a p p l i c a n t ' s l i m i t e d work e x p e r i e n c e r e c o r d . d) the a p p l i c a n t ' s r e c o r d o f h o l d i n g many j o b s o v e r a s h o r t p e r i o d o f t i m e . The i n f o r m a t i o n i n the resume s h o u l d i n c l u d e a) w hatever you have n o t put i n the l e t t e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n . b) e d u c a t i o n a l background and work e x p e r i e n c e o n l y . c) p e r s o n a l d a t a , e d u c a t i o n a l r e c o r d s and work e x p e r i e n c e . d) y o u r name, address and t e l e p h o n e number. I n a c i t y w i t h a work f o r c e o f 400,000, a p p r o x i m a t e l y what number of j o b s w i l l be a v a i l a b l e a t a l l t i m e s ? a) 4,000 b) 8,000 c) 12,000 d) 16,000 You can h e l p y o u r s e l f t o communicate more e f f e c t i v e l y d u r i n g an i n t e r v i e w by a) r e a d i n g the c o m p e t i t i o n f o l d e r . b) r e h e a r s i n g y o u r s e l f f o r i t . c) v i s i t i n g the r e c e p t i o n i s t b e f o r e h a n d f o r d e t a i l s . d) g o i n g f o r i n t e r v i e w s f o r j o b s you don't want. The l e t t e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n accompanying a resume" s h o u l d c o n t a i n a) a l l o f the i n f o r m a t i o n i n the resume". b) o n l y a r e q u e s t t h a t your a p p l i c a t i o n be c o n s i d e r e d . c) o n l y i n f o r m a t i o n not c o n t a i n e d i n the resume". d) a summary of the i n f o r m a t i o n i n the resume". 139 11. The b l i n d a d v e r t i s e m e n t i n the "Help Wanted" column i s one t h a t a) i s p l a c e d i n an obscure p o s i t i o n . b) does not i n c l u d e the s a l a r y b e i n g o f f e r e d . c) does not i n c l u d e a job d e s c r i p t i o n . d) d i r e c t s r e p l i e s to a box number. 12. The k i n d of l e t t e r of recommendation you s h o u l d show to a p r o s p e c t i v e employer i s one t h a t a) says o n l y good t h i n g s about you. b) d e a l s o n l y i n g e n e r a l i t i e s . c) g i v e s d e f i n i t e s t r o n g p o i n t s i n p o s i t i v e language. d) i n d i c a t e s the w r i t e r has known you f o r a l o n g t i m e . 13. In s e t t i n g out your e d u c a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i n a resume, i t i s customary t o l i s t academic q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a) w i t h the most r e c e n t f i r s t . b) w i t h the most r e c e n t l a s t . c) w i t h the h i g h e s t achievements f i r s t . d) i n whatever o r d e r i s most a t t r a c t i v e . 14. When you are a p p l y i n g f o r y o u r f i r s t j o b , what q u a l i t i e s w i l l the employer be l o o k i n g f o r ? a) a h i g h l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n and e x p e r i e n c e t h a t might i n some way be r e l a t e d t o the job i n q u e s t i o n . b) s e r i o u s n e s s o f i n t e n t i o n s i n g e t t i n g a j o b . c) y o u t h f u l i d e a s f o r i m p r o v i n g h i s company. d) a l e r t n e s s , e v i d e n c e o f i n t e l l i g e n c e , i n i t i a t i v e and enthus iasm. 15. I t i s not c o n s i d e r e d i n good t a s t e f o r you t o t a k e the i n i t i a t i v e i n s h a k i n g hands w i t h the p r o s p e c t i v e employer because a) n i n e t y out o f one hundred i n d i v i d u a l s a p p l y i n g f o r j o b s do n o t shake hands p r o p e r l y . b) i t appears too much l i k e a s l i c k salesman's t e c h n i q u e . c) i t may g i v e the i m p r e s s i o n o f f a m i l i a r i t y . d) handshakes o f t e n r e v e a l your n e r v o u s n e s s . 16. The a d v e r t i s e m e n t u s u a l l y r e c e i v i n g the l a r g e s t number of a p p l i c a n t s f o r a j o b i s a) the b l i n d a d v e r t i s e m e n t . b) the b i g g e s t a d v e r t i s e m e n t . c) the open a d v e r t i s e m e n t . d) the one t h a t i n c l u d e s s a l a r y s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . 17. L e t t e r s o f a p p l i c a t i o n s h o u l d be w r i t t e n on a) s t a n d a r d 8 V x 14" s t a t i o n e r y . b) p e r s o n a l i z e d s t a t i o n e r y . c) s t a t i o n e r y l a r g e enough to f i t a l l i n f o r m a t i o n on one page d) s t a n d a r d 8%" x 11" s t a t i o n e r y . 140 18. An i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f your p r e p a r a t i o n f o r a job i n t e r v i e w s h o u l d be a) memorizing the i n f o r m a t i o n on your resume. b) a c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f whether you even want the j o b i f i t i s o f f e r e d t o you. c) g e t t i n g p r a c t i c e i n m e e t i n g p e o p l e . d) a c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l the q u e s t i o n s the i n t e r v i e w e r might r a i s e . 19. When d o i n g a s e l f - s k i l l a n a l y s i s , you s h o u l d c a r e f u l l y cons i d e r a) t h o s e t h i n g s t h a t you r e a l l y l i k e t o do. b) o n l y p r e v i o u s j o b s h e l d . c) t h i n g s t h a t you l i k e and can do w e l l , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h i n g s you d i s l i k e d o i n g . d) o n l y those t h i n g s you can do w e l l . 20. The term " u n s o l i c i t e d l e t t e r of a p p l i c a t i o n " i s used t o r e f e r t o a l e t t e r w r i t t e n a) when a d e f i n i t e j o b v a c a n c y i s known t o e x i s t . b) a s k i n g f o r i n f o r m a t i o n about p o s s i b l e j o b o p e n i n g s . c) g i v i n g v e r y e a r n e s t r e a s o n s f o r ne e d i n g a j o b . d) when i t i s n o t known i f a j o b vacancy e x i s t s . KEY: (a) -• - 3, 4, 13, 20. Cb) - - 2, 6, 9. CO - - 1, 5, 7, 12, 15, 16, 19 Cd) - - 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18. 141 P O S T - T E S T TECHNIQUES OF JOB-SEEKING DIRECTIONS: Following are a number of statements related to f i n d i n g a job. Each statement consists of four a l t e r n a t i v e s l e t t e r e d a_, b_, c_, and d_. Please select the ONE statement (and only one) which you feel is most accurate, and CIRCLE it. For example, look at the following statement: 1. Placing an advertisement in the "Job Wanted" column is generally most useful if you have not been able to get a job through Canada Manpower. you are q u a l i f i e d in some outstanding way for a kind of work that is somewhat out of the ordinary. you are looking for a top-level executive p o s i t i o n , you are an u n s k i l l e d worker. You may answer questions even when you are not completely sure that your answers are correct. In such cases, i n t e l l i g e n t consideration of the choices provided may help you to gain marks. HOWEVER, you should AVOID WILD GUESSING as t h i s may result in a reduction in your score. Give each question careful thought, but work as quickly as you can. If you find a question too d i f f i c u l t , do not spend too much time on i t . Pass on to the next ones, and return l a t e r to any that you have missed. a) <B c) d) 1. In one day o f c o n c e n t r a t e d job s e e k i n g , how many resume's s h o u l d you be l i k e l y t o have d i s t r i b u t e d ? a) 1 b) 4 c) 8 d) 12 2. The advent o f a u t o m a t i o n and l a b o r - s a v i n g d e v i c e s has caused a) a h i g h r a t e o f unemployment. b) many j o b s to be e l i m i n a t e d . c) more job s to be c r e a t e d than e l i m i n a t e d . d) g r e a t e r c o m p e t i t i o n f o r a l l job o p e n i n g s . 3. The major purpose of a n a l y s i n g your b a ckground, t r a i n i n g and e x p e r i e n c e i s to a) b o o s t your s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e i n j o b - s e e k i n g . b) h e l p you d e t e r m i n e what you are b e s t q u a l i f i e d to do. c) h e l p you r e f r e s h your memory i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r i n t e r v i e w s . d) h e l p you see what q u a l i f i c a t i o n s you are l a c k i n g . 142 4. B e f o r e g i v i n g the names of p e o p l e as r e f e r e n c e s i n a p p l y -i n g f o r a j o b , you s h o u l d a) check t h a t you have t h e i r c o r r e c t a d d r e sses and t e l e p h o n e numbers. b) ask t h e i r p e r m i s s i o n to use them as r e f e r e n c e s . c) f i n d out what k i n d of a l e t t e r they would w r i t e f o r you. d) go over w i t h them the p o i n t s you want i n c l u d e d i n the l e t t e r . 5. P u b l i c and p r i v a t e employment a g e n c i e s can h e l p you i n jo b s e e k i n g i f you a) camp on t h e i r d o o r s t e p u n t i l t h ey f i n d you a j o b . b) l e t them h a n d l e your s i t u a t i o n t o t a l l y . c) c o n s i d e r them as j u s t one job p r o s p e c t . d) g i v e them p l e n t y o f time t o f i n d you a j o b . 6. You are u s u a l l y q u i c k e r and more a c c u r a t e i n f i l l i n g out j o b a p p l i c a t i o n forms when a) y o u r p r o s p e c t i v e employer i s not i n the same room. b) you have a p p l i e d f o r many j o b s . c) you have a p r e p a r e d resume t o r e f e r t o . d) t h e y have l a r g e p r i n t e d d i r e c t i o n s t o f o l l o w . 7. Upon e n t e r i n g the p r o s p e c t i v e employer's p r e s e n c e , the f i r s t t h i n g you s h o u l d do i s a) shake hands and i n t r o d u c e y o u r s e l f . b) g r e e t him p l e a s a n t l y and g i v e him your name. c) s t a n d q u i e t l y u n t i l you are spoken t o . d) i n t r o d u c e y o u r s e l f and i m m e d i a t e l y ask about j o b o p e n i n g s . 8. In a d d i t i o n t o p r o v i d i n g a l i s t o f job v a c a n c i e s , the "Help Wanted" s e c t i o n can g i v e some i n d i c a t i o n o f a) the k i n d s o f j o b s you might be q u a l i f i e d f o r . b) the number o f j o b s p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e . c) the ways i n w h i c h you might f i t i n t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f a company. d) the k i n d s o f companies l o c a t e d i n your community. 9. S i n c e an employer o f t e n asks why you f e e l t h a t h i s company i s the p l a c e to a p p l y f o r a j o b , p a r t o f your i n t e r v i e w p r e p a r a t i o n s h o u l d i n c l u d e a) r e a d i n g the j o b c o m p e t i t i o n f o l d e r . b) m a t c h i n g your q u a l i f i c a t i o n s w i t h the job s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . c) g e t t i n g ready f o r un e x p e c t e d q u e s t i o n s . d) f i n d i n g out i n f o r m a t i o n about the company. 143 10. You s h o u l d b e s t be a b l e to d e t e r m i n e whether your p r e f e r e n c e s f o r j o b s have changed over time by a) t a l k i n g w i t h your f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s . b) c o u n t i n g up the number of j o b s you have h e l d . c) a s e l f - s k i l l a n a l y s i s . d) c o u n t i n g up the number of t h i n g s you have done s u c c e s s f u l l y . 11. An a d v e r t i s e m e n t w h i c h d i r e c t s r e p l i e s t o a box number i s c a l l e d a) an open a d v e r t i s e m e n t . b) a s o l i c i t e d a d v e r t i s e m e n t . c) a d i s g u i s e d a d v e r t i s e m e n t . d) a b l i n d a d v e r t i s e m e n t . 12. For making a f i n a l d e c i s i o n on who i s t o be h i r e d f o r a j o b , most employers use a) s t a n d a r d j o b a p p l i c a t i o n forms. b) achievement t e s t s . c) p e r s o n a l a p p r a i s a l . d) the recommendations of r e f e r r a l a g e n c i e s . 13. The b e s t way to d e t e r m i n e y o y r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r a c e r t a i n j ob i s a) t o ask the employer. b) t o compare the a b i l i t i e s and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s you p o s s e s s w i t h the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s r e q u i r e d f o r the j o b i n ques-t i o n . c) t o t a k e a t e s t r e l a t e d t o the job i n q u e s t i o n . d) to c o n s u l t an employment r e f e r r a l agency such as. Canada Manpower. 14. In an i n t e r v i e w i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o have a t your f i n g e r t i p s the d a t e s o f p r e v i o u s j o b s because a) most employers don't have too much time f o r i n t e r v i e w -i n g . b) t h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t you are a q u i c k and i n t e l l i g e n t p e r s o n . c) f o g g i n e s s o f memory may be i n t e r p r e t e d as f a l s i f i c a t i o n o f y o u r employment r e c o r d . d) t h i s i s the q u e s t i o n most f r e q u e n t l y asked i n an i n t e r -v i e w . 15. An open a d v e r t i s e m e n t i n the "Help Wanted" column i s one t h a t a) appears e v e r y day f o r a t l e a s t a week. b) i n c l u d e s the name and address o f the employer and a job d e s c r i p t i o n . c) a d v e r t i s e s f o r e i t h e r men or women. d) appears a t the b e g i n n i n g of the column. 144 16. To w r i t e an e f f e c t i v e answer t o an a d v e r t i s e m e n t , you s h o u l d a) i n c l u d e i n d e t a i l y o u r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i n case the employer i s not c o n d u c t i n g i n t e r v i e w s . b) g i v e s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n i n answer to the q u e s t i o n s i m p l i e d i n the a d v e r t i s e m e n t . c) c o n c e n t r a t e your e f f o r t s on p r o d u c i n g a l e t t e r t h a t w i l l a t t r a c t a t t e n t i o n . d) f i r s t w r i t e t o the employer f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a -t i o n about the j o b . 17. You can b e s t demonstrate y o u r i n i t i a t i \ r e d u r i n g an i n t e r -v i e w by a) o f f e r i n g t o shake hands and t a k e c o n t r o l o f the d i s -c u s s i o n . b) s u g g e s t i n g to the i n t e r v i e w e r changes i n h i s p r o d u c t . c) d r e s s i n g i n the l a t e s t f a s h i o n . d) l e a r n i n g as much as p o s s i b l e about the company ahead of t i m e . 18. The b e s t way t o p r e v e n t a p r o s p e c t i v e employer from under-e s t i m a t i n g y o ur a b i l i t y , c h a r a c t e r and good q u a l i t i e s i s a) by a p p e a r i n g a g g r e s s i v e and s e l f - c o n f i d e n t i n the i n t e r v i e w . b) by c a r e f u l l y p r e p a r i n g f o r the i n t e r v i e w so q u a l i f i -c a t i o n s may be p r e s e n t e d i n an e f f e c t i v e manner. c) by p r e s e n t i n g him w i t h your resume t o r e a d . d) by d o i n g most o f the t a l k i n g w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r h i s ques t i o n s . 19 One i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n f o r not c o n f i n i n g a job s e a r c h j u s t t o j o b s s i m i l a r t o ones you have done i n the p a s t i s a) t h e r e may not be much a v a i l a b l e i n t h a t a r e a . b) i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t you are i n f l e x i b l e . c) the j o b s you had p r e v i o u s l y may not have brou g h t out your b e s t a b i l i t i e s . d) i t g e t s h a r d e r t o change t o d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f j o b s as you grow o l d e r . 20. The term " s o l i c i t e d l e t t e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n " i s used t o r e f e r t o a l e t t e r w r i t t e n a) when a d e f i n i t e j o b vacancy i s known t o e x i s t . b) t o accompany the f i r m ' s job a p p l i c a t i o n form. c) when you are too f a r away t o go f o r an i n t e r v i e w . d) t o summarize the c o n t e n t s o f the resume". KEY: (a) -- 20. (b) -- 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18. (c) -- 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 14, 19. (d) -- 8, 9, 11, 17. 145 A P P E N D I X D Page 1. Student Background Information . 146 2. Evaluation of the Presentation 147 3. Table XXIV MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF AGES OF SUBJECTS 149 4. Table XXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY VOCATIONAL TRAINING EXPERIENCE 150 5. Table XXVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING TAKEN BY SUBJECTS 151 6. Table XXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY WORK EXPERIENCE 152 7. Table XXVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES OF OCCUPATIONS ENGAGED IN BY SUBJECTS 153 8. Table XXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS' RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE EXPERIMENTAL PRESENTATIONS 154 9. Table XXX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMENTS MADE BY SUBJECTS ON THE EXPERIMENTAL PRESENTATIONS 155 10. Table XXI MEAN SCORES OBTAINED BY SUBJECTS IN DIRECT TREATMENTS ON SCALE STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE INSTRUCTOR'S INFLUENCE 156 11. Table XXXII MEAN SCORES OBTAINED BY SUBJECTS IN INDIRECT TREATMENTS ON SCALE STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE INSTRUCTOR'S INFLUENCE 157 12. Table XXXIV CORRELATION MATRIX FOR SUBJECTS . . 158 146 STUDENT BACKGROUND INFORMATION (Taken from the s c h o o l s ' r e c o r d s ) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n No. 1,3 _ Name: Grade L e v e l 4,5 E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 6 1. Sex: 1. Male 2. Female 7 2. Age: 8,9 3. M a r i t a l S t a t u s : 1. S i n g l e 2. M a r r i e d 3. Div o r c e d - ^ e t c . 10 4. P l a c e of Permanent R e s i d e n c e : 11 5. L a s t Grade Completed 12,13 6. Ever l i v e d o u t s i d e B.C.: 1. Yes 2. No 14 7. I f YES to ( 6 ) , where? 15 8. Some form o f p a s t employment: 1. Yes 2.. No 16 9. I f YES to ( 8 ) , j o b s h e l d : 17,19 10. P r e v i o u s v o c a t i o n a l or t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g : 1. Yes 2. No 20 11. I f YES t o ( 1 0 ) , what t r a i n i n g program? 21,23 12. Fee Payment: 1. by s t u d e n t p e r s o n a l l y 2. O c c u p a t i o n a l T r a i n i n g A s s i s t a n c e 3. Dept. of I n d i a n A f f a i r s 4. S o c i a l W e l f a r e x  5. C h i l d r e n ' s A i d 6. Other 24 13. I n t e r n a l - E x t e r n a l S c a l e S c o r e : 25 26 14. G a t e s - M a c G i n i t i e Reading T e s t S c o r e s : 1. Speed § A c c u r a c y 27,28 2. V o c a b u l a r y 29,30 3. Comprehension 31,32 4. T o t a l Score 33,34 15. P r e - T e s t S c o r e : 35,36 16. P o s t - T e s t 1 S c o r e : 37,38 17. P o s t - T e s t 2 S c o r e : 39,40 147 EVALUATION OF THE PRESENTATION Name : Following are seven statements describing ways in which an in-structor might act in a class. Please i n d i c a t e how you f e l t about the i n s t r u c t o r ' s behaviour in today's presentation by checking how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the statements. A f t e r the v i d e o t a p e p r e s e n t a t i o n , the i n s t r u c t o r spent a l o t of time e x p r e s s i n g h i s own i d e a s or l e c t u r i n g . S t r o n g l y S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e : : : : Agree 41 The i n s t r u c t o r gave us a l o t o f d i r e c t i o n s , commands and o r d e r s t h a t we were e x p e c t e d t o comply w i t h . S t r o n g l y S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e : : : : Agree 42 1 2 3 4 5 The i n s t r u c t o r was c r i t i c a l o f our i d e a s . S t r o n g l y S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e : : : : Agree 43 The i n s t r u c t o r a c c e p t e d and s u p p o r t e d the i d e a s and f e e l i n g s o f our c l a s s . S t r o n g l y S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e : : : : Agree 44 The i n s t r u c t o r t r i e d t o a s s e r t h i s a u t h o r i t y . S t r o n g l y S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e : : : : Agree 45 The i n s t r u c t o r p r a i s e d and encouraged members o f our c l a s s . S t r o n g l y S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e : : : : Agree 46 148 The i n s t r u c t o r asked q u e s t i o n s to get the c l a s s i n v o l v e d i n d i s c u s s i o n . S t r o n g l y S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e : : : : Agree 47 Following are three questions regarding today's presentation. Please i n d i c a t e your f e e l i n g s about it by checking "YES" or "NO" and making comments. 8. D i d you f i n d the c o n t e n t o f today's v i d e o t a p e p r e s e n t a -t i o n i n t e r e s t i n g ? Yes No 48 9. D i d the i n s t r u c t o r conduct the c l a s s i n a d i f f e r e n t way than you are accustomed t o ? Yes No 49 10. Would you l i k e more c l a s s e s c o nducted l i k e the one today? Yes No 50 • Why or why n o t ? 51,52 149 Table XXIV MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF AGES OF SUBJECTS Experimental Condition No Mean Age Standard Deviation Control Group 1 15 Group 2 16 Total 31 Direct Influence, Goals Group 1 11 Group 2 20 Total 31 Direct Influence, No Goals Group 1 22 Group 2 16 Total 38 Indirect Influence, Goals Group 1 20 Group 2 17 Total 37 Indirect Influence, No Goals Group 1 18 Group 2 22 Total 40 25.9 28.9 27.5 22.5 24.0 23.4 24.0 26.8 25.1 24.9 26.4 25.5 25.1 24.5 24.7 5.71 6.64 6.30 2.81 5.45 4. 84 5.45 7.72 6.56 6.17 8.37 7.20 4.62 6.67 5.78 TOTAL 177 25.2 6.27 Table XXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY VOCATIONAL TRAINING EXPERIENCE Experimental Condition Total No. % Some Training No. % No Training No. % Control Group 1 Group 2 Total 15 16 31 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 1 2 6.7 6.3 6.5 14 15 29 93.3 93.7 93.5 Direct Influence, Goals Group 1 Group 2 Total 11 20 31 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 2 3 9.1 10.0 9.7 10 18 28 90.9 90.0 90.3 Direct Influence, No Goals Group 1 22 100.0 Group 2 16 100.0 Total 38 100.0 4 0 4 18. 2 0.0 10.5 18 16 34 81.8 100.0 89.5 Indirect Influence, Goals Group 1 Group 2 Total 20 17 37 100.0 100.0 100.0 9 2 11 45.0 11.8 29.7 11 15 26 55.0 88.2 70.3 Indirect Influence, No Goals Group 1 18 100.0 Group 2 22 100.0 Total 40 100.0 10 2 12 55.6 9.1 30.0 8 20 28 44.4 90.9 70.0 TOTAL 177 100.0 32 18.1 145 81.9 151 Table XXVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING TAKEN BY SUBJECTS Training Program Number Percent B.T.S.D. Previous Level 14 43.8 Basic Employment Skills Training 1 3.1 Automechanics 2 6.3 Typing 1 3.1 Waitress Training 2 6.3 Nurses' Aid 1 3.1 Hairdressing 2 6.3 Radioman 1 3.1 Hotel-Restaurant 1 3.1 Sandblaster, Painter 1 3.1 Medical Laboratory Technician 1 3.1 Basic Computers 1 3.1 Preapprentice Hydraulic Machines 1 3.1 B.T.S.D. g Other 3 9.4 Total 32 100.0 Table XXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY WORK EXPERIENCE Experimental Condition Total No. % Some Experience No. I No Experience No. % Control Group 1 15 Group 2 16 Total 31 Direct Influence, Goals Group 1 11 Group 2 20 Total 31 Direct Influence, No Goals Group 1 22 Group 2 Total Indirect Influence, Goals Group 1 Group 2 Total 16 38 20 17 37 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 13 14 27 9 11 20 14 8 22 13 10 23 86.7 87.5 87.1 81.8 55.0 64.5 63.6 50.0 57.9 65.0 58.8 62. 2 2 2 4 2 9 11 8 8 16 7 7 14 13.3 12.5 12.9 18.2 44.0 35.5 36.4 50.0 42.1 35.0 41. 2 37.8 Indirect Influence, No Goals Group 1 Group 2 Total 18 22 40 100.0 100.0 100.0 14 15 29 77.8 68.2 72.5 4 7 11 22.2 31.8 27.5 TOTAL 177 100.0 121 68.4 56 31.6 153 Table XXVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES OF OCCUPATIONS ENGAGED IN BY SUBJECTS Type of Occupation Numb e r Percent Health Technician 1 Clerical Occupations 13 Sales Occupations 12 Service § Recreation 37 Transportation § Communications 7 Farming, Logging, Fishing, Mining 11 Craftsmen, Production Process § Related Workers 21 Laborer (area of work not specified) 19 TOTAL 121 0.8 10.7 9.9 30.6 5.8 9.1 17.4 15.7 100.0 Table XXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS' RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO TIE EXPERIMENTAL PRESENTATIONS Experimental Group Total No. % Content Interesting Yes No No. % No. % Class Different Yes No No. % No. % More Classes Yes No. % No. No % Direct/Goals Group 1 11 100.0 10 90.0 1 9.0 3 27.2 8 72.7 11 100.0 0 0.0 Group 2 20 100.0 7 35.0 13 65.0 16 80.0 4 20.0 9 45.0 11 55.0 Total 31 100.0 17 54.9 14 45.1 19 61.2 12 38.7 20 64.5 11 35.4 Direct/No Goals Group 1 22 100.0 16 72.7 6 27.2 11 50.0 11 50.0 17 77.2 5 22.7 Group 2 16 100.0 14 87.5 2 12.5 8 50.0 8 50.0 10 62.5 6 37.5 Total 38 100.0 30 78.9 8 21.0 19 50.0 19 50.0 27 71.0 11 28.9 Indirect/Goals Group 1 20 100.0 15 75.0 5 25.0 10 50.0 10 50.0 16 80.0 4 20.0 Group 2 17 100.0 12 70.5 5 29.4 10 58.8 7 41.1 12 70.5 5 29.4 Total 37 100.0 27 72.9 10 27.0 20 54.0 17 45.9 28 75.6 9 24.3 Indirect/No Goals Group 1 18 100.0 15 83.3 3 16.6 13 72.2 5 27.7 13 72.2 5 27.7 Group 2 22 100.0 17 77.2 5 22.7 . 9 40.9 13 59.0 16 72.7 6 27.2 Total 40 100.0 32 80.0 8 20.0 22 55.0 18 45.0 29 72.5 11 27.5 155 Table XXX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMENTS MADE BY SUBJECTS ON THE EXPERIMENTAL PRESENTATION Statements Direct Influence Indirect Influence No. % No. % 1. No comments 1 3.2 0 0.0 2. Subject interesting 8 25.8 3 8.1 3. Greater student participation 1 3.2 9 24.3 4. Instructor knew subject and 5 Stated stayed on topic 4 12.9 5 13.5 5 Stated 5. Instructor guided discussion well 3 9.7 5 13.5 5 Stated 6. Instructor respected students' 5 Stated opinions 0 0.0 2 5.4 — i 05 7. Videotape effective 3 9.7 5 13.5 O 8. Subject boring 2 6.5 4 10.8 9. Students talked too much 2 6.5 4 10.8 10. Presentation too elementary 1 3.2 0 0.0 11. No opportunities for discussion 5 16.1 0 0.0 12. Lack of feedback 1 3.2 0 0.0 Total 31 100.0 37 100.0 1. No comments 3 7.9 3 7.5 2. Subject interesting 8 21.1 7 17.5 3. Greater student participation 0 0.0 5 12.5 4. Instructor knew subject and •d stayed on topic 7 18.4 3 7.5 <D 4-1 5. Instructor guided discussion well 3 7.9 6 15.0 oi +-> 6. Instructor respected students' m opinions 0 0.0 4 10.0 10 i — i 7. Videotape effective 5 13.2 1 2.5 OJ O 8. Subject boring 4 10.5 3 7.5 O 9. Students talked too much 1 2.6 5 12.5 10. Presentation too elementary 0 0.0 1 2.5 11. No opportunities for discussion 6 15.8 0 0.0 12. Lack of Feedback 1 2.6 2 5.0 Total 38 100.0 40 100.0 Table XXXI MEAN SCORES OBTAINED BY SUBJECTS IN DIRECT TREATMENTS ON SCALE STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE INSTRUCTOR'S INFLUENCE Statement Direct/Goals Group 1 Group 2 Mean SD Mean SD Direct/No Group 1 Mean SD Goals Group 2 Mean SD 1. The instructor spent a lot of time expressing his own ideas or lecturing. 4.63 .48 4,35 .73 4.50 .66 4.63 .48 1. 2. The instructor gave a lot of directions c°i orders to which we were to comply. 3.55 .78 3.65 .79 3.00 .85 3.44 .79 2. 3. The instructor criticized some of our ideas. 4.00 .74 2.50 1.05 2.86 .97 3.00 1.06 3. 4. The instructor tried to assert his authority at times. 3.27 1.05 3.10 1.09 2.95 .93 3.50 1.00 4. 5. The instructor accepted § sup-ported the ideas § feelings of class members. 2.27 1.01 2.50 1.02 2.41 1.07 2.81 1.13 5. 6. The instructor asked questions to get the class involved in discussion. 2.73 1.01 2.60 .86 2.86 1.22 2.94 1.30 6. 7. The instructor praised {j encour-aged students. 1.64 1.15 1.60 .73 2.14 .97 1.94 .97 7. TOTAL MEAN SCORE 22.09 2.61 19.90 2.72 20.73 2.05 22.25 2.82 TOTAL Table XXXII MEAN SCORES OBTAINED BY SUBJECTS IN INDIRECT TREATMENTS ON SCALE STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE INSTRUCTOR'S BEHAVIOUR Statement Indirect/Goals Group 1 Group 2 Mean SD Mean SD Indirect/No Goals Group 1 Group 2 Mean SD Mean SD 1. The instructor spent a lot of time expressing his own ideas or lecturing 1.30 .56 . 1.31 .58 1.44 .76 1.48 .66 1. 2. The instructor gave a lot of directions § orders to which we were to comply. 1.40 .66 1.44 .61 1.38 .68 1.48 .91 2. 3. The instructor criticized some.of our ideas. 1.25 .54 1.19 .39 1.17 .37 1.14 .35 3. 4. The instructor tried to assert his authority at times. 1.50 .67 1.56 .61 1.50 1.01 1.24 .53 4. 5. The instructor accepted § sup-ported the ideas § feelings of class members. 3.90 .70 4.50 .71 4.33 .47 4.05 1.05 5. 6. The instructor asked questions to get the class involved in discussion. 4.30 .78 4.19 .63 4.06 1.03 4.19 .66 6. 7. The instructor praised § encour-aged students. 4.00 .63 4.19 .81 3.89 .81 3.86 .83 7. TOTAL MEAN SCORE 17.75 1.64 18.19 2.04 17.78 .98 17.43 1.56 TOTAL Table XXXTV CORRELATION MATRIX FOR SUBJECTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1. 1.00 List of Variables: 2. -.27 1.00 3. -.25 .20 1.00 4. .01 .16 - .23 •1.00 5. .13 .11 -.36 .55 1.00 6. .01 -.15 -.25 .47 .70 1.00 7. .10 -.34 -.28 -.28 .42 .38 1.00 8. .02 .08 -.34 .33 .46 .34 .42 1.00 9. .05 .04 -.35 .34 .47 .38 .40 .71 • 1.00 *10. .03 -.19 -.08 .07 .03 .06 .02 .64 .05 1.00 *11. .12 -.06 -.03 .05 .03 .01 .08 .58 .04 .68 1.00 *12. .01 -.33 -.02 -.01 .07 .20 -.22 -.64 -.10 .62 .48 1.00 *13. -.03 .26 -.09 .01 .03 -.07 -.06 .50 .05 .60 .50 .44 *14. .10 .20 -.07 .06 .10 -.04 -.08 .49 .02 -.62 -.54 -.42 *15. -.09 .16 -.09 -.11 .04 -.09 -.09 .42 .09 -.70 -.59 -.53 *16. -.14 -.05 -.02 .14 .02 .10 .01 .33 -.30 -.52 -.41 -.39 *17. .21 -.14 -.05 -.04 -.03 .04 .09 .14 .16 .09 -.09' .11 *18. .05 -.00 -.06 -.04 .05 .18 .03 .25 .12 .03 .01 -.06 *19. -.01 -.13 -.08 -.03 .07 .03 -.00 .72 .03 -.00 -.09 .04 1. Age 2. Last grade completed 3. I-E Scores 4. Speed-Accuracy 5. Vocabulary 6. Comprehension 7. Pre-Test 17 8. Post-Test 1 18 9. Post-Test 2 19 10. Lectures 11. Gives Directions 12. Criticizes 13. Asserts Authority 14. Praises 15. Accepts Ideas <"• 16. Asks Questions 1.00 -.39 -.56 -.29 .08 .09 -.12 1.00 .55 .32 -.13 -.12 .14 1.00 .33 -.07 -.04 .00 Content Class Different More classes 1.00 -.16 -.17 .14 1.00 .53 -.08 1.00 -.06 1.00 *Experimental groups only; N=146. OO 159 A P P E N D I X E Page 1 . Matrix 1 DIRECT INSTRUCTOR INFLUENCE, GOALS 160 2. Matrix 2 DIRECT INSTRUCTOR INFLUENCE, NO GOALS 161 3. Matrix 3 INDIRECT INSTRUCTOR INFLUENCE, GOALS 162 4. Matrix 4 INDIRECT INSTRUCTOR INFLUENCE, NO GOALS 163 5. The St a t i s t i c a l Problem of Comparing Matrices 164 6. Estimating Inter-Observer Reli a b i l i t y by Scott's Method Using Percent 167 7. Inter-Observer Re l i a b i l i t y Calculated by Scott's Method Using Percent 168 Matrix 1 DIRECT INSTRUCTOR INFLUENCE, GOALS Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Totals 1. Praises 1 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 2. Accepts ideas 0 36 11 20 1 1 5 1 1 76 Teacher 3. Questions 0 3 12 1 0 4 25 0 13 58 Talk 4. Lectures 1 2 20 487 3 3 0 7 1 524 5. Directs, Orders 0 0 1 1 10 0 0 1 2 15 6. Criticizes 0 0 2 4 0 4 3 1 1 15 Student 7. Response 6 19 5 5 0 0 31 2 1 69 Talk 8. Initiation 4 5 1 2 0 0 1 4 1 18 9. No one Talks 0 1 6 4 0 3 4 2 3 23 Totals 12 76 58 524 15 15 69 18 23 810 0. •a 1.5 9.4 7.2 64.7 1.9 1.9 8.5 2.2 2.8 100.0 Matrix 2 DIRECT INSTRUCTOR INFLUENCE, NO GOALS Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Totals 1. Praises 2 1 3 5 0 1 1 0 0 13 2. Accepts ideas 3 66 6 19 1 0 4 7 5 111 Teacher 3. Questions 0 3 33 0 0 1 37 4 1 79 Talk 4. Lectures 0 0 27 696 0 0 1 5 5 734 5. Directs, Orders 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 6. Criticizes 0 1 1 2 0 6 1 1 0 12 Student 7. Response 7 25 3 2 1 3 32 4 2 79 Talk 8. Initiation 1 15 4 1 0 1 0 27 0 49 9. No one Talks 0 0 1 9 0 0 3 0 2 15 Totals 13 111 79 734 3 12 79 49 15 1095 1.2 10.1 7.2 67.0 .3 1.1 7.2 4.5 1.4 100.0 Matrix 3 INDIRECT INSTRUCTOR INFLUENCE, GOALS Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Totals 1. Praises 8 28 3 1 0 0 5 9 3 57 2. Accepts ideas 15 170 16 18 1 1 21 37 5 284 Teacher 3. Questions 0 3 41 2 0 0 14 23 6 89 Talk 4. Lectures 2 3 11 101 1 0 4 9 1 132 5. Directs, Orders 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 6. Criticizes 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 7 7. Response 8 11 4 2 0 0 21 21 2 69 Student Talk 8. Initiation 23 62 10 3 1 4 0 433 1 537 9. No one Talks 0 5 2 4 0 0 4 3 2 20 Totals 57 284 89 132 6 7 69 537 20 1201 % 4.7 23.6 7.4 11.0 .5 .6 5.7 44.7 1.7 100.0 Matrix 4 INDIRECT INSTRUCTOR INFLUENCE, NO GOALS Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Totals 1. Praises 9 23 7 1 0 0 2 12 1 55 2. Accepts ideas 12 124 16 18 0 1 7 43 4 225 3. Questions 0 4 47 4 0 0 30 2 12 99 Teacher Talk 4. Lectures 1 2 17 120 0 0 2 4 1 147 5. Directs, Orders 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Criticizes 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 7. Response 15 14 2 0 0 0 28 19 0 78 Student Talk 8. Initiation 18 54 5 0 0 2 2 361 2 444 9. No one Talks 0 2 5 3 0 0 7 3 5 25 Totals 55 225 99 147 0 6 78 444 25 1079 % 5.1 20.9 9.2 13.6 0.0 0.6 7.2 41.1 2.3 100.0 164 THE STATISTICAL PROBLEM OF COMPARING MATRICES 1 -- The Darwin C h i - S q u a r e A n a l y s i s --In any enumeration o f events i n two or more c a t e g o r i e s , the C h i - s q u a r e t e s t i s i n s e n s i t i v e t o sequence. As p a r t o f h i s g e n e r a l a n a l y s i s o f t h i s p r o b l e m , Darwin (1959, p. 415) o u t l i n e s a t e s t f o r comparing two or more a r r a y s d i s t r i b u t e d i n "n" c a t e g o r i e s . He i l l u s t r a t e s the b i a s t h a t o c c u r s when such a comparison i s made by a p p l y i n g b o t h h i s t e s t and an o r d i n a r y C h i - s q u a r e t e s t t o a s i m p l e 2 x 2 c o n t i n g e n c y t a b l e G i v e n two p o s s i b l e e v e n t s , the p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f a 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, and 2-2 sequence p a i r o c c u r r i n g are i l l u s t r a t e d below: p l , l P i , 2 ?2,1 P2,2 Darwin shows t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e between the c r i t e r i o n he d e v e l o p s by t a k i n g i n t o a ccount dependence w i t h i n sequence p a i r s and a r e g u l a r C h i - s q u a r e t e s t i s shown by the m u l t i -p l i e r , P i , 2 + P2.1 . P l , l + P 2 , 2 T h i s r a t i o approaches one as the f o u r p r o b a b i l i t i e s approach e q u a l i t y . In i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s d a t a the p r o b a b i l i t y o f the same event f o l l o w i n g i t s e l f i s always g r e a t e r than the p r o b a b i l i t y o f a t r a n s i t i o n t o a n o t h e r c a t e g o r y . The denom-i n a t o r o f the above r a t i o , p a r t i c u l a r l y when extended to t e n c a t e g o r i e s , i s n e a r l y always g r e a t e r t h a n the numerator. When the C h i - s q u a r e c r i t e r i o n i s r e d u c e d by t h i s f a c t o r , t h e r e i s l e s s chance t h a t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s w i l l be r e j e c t e d , when i n f a c t , i t i s t r u e . The magnitude of t h i s c o r r e c t i o n w i l l v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o the f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n ; i n some m a t r i c e s , the r e d u c t i o n may be as g r e a t as o n e - f i f t h . A l l o f Darwin's a n a l y s i s i s based on the as s u m p t i o n t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n sequences are one-dependent or M a r k o f f c h a i n s w h i c h i s a much b e t t e r a p p r o x i m a t i o n than the zero-dependent a s s u m p t i o n o f C h i - s q u a r e . Communication events a r e , i n f a c t , more than one-dependent, but the a d d i t i o n a l dependence o f t h r e e or more events i s s m a l l by comparison t o the dependence between two e v e n t s . E x c e r p t from Ned A. F l a n d e r s , I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s i n the C l a s s r o o m , A Manual f o r O b s e r v e r s , (Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n : S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , 1966), 35-39. 165 Comparing I n t e r a c t i o n M a t r i c e s G i v e n two or more m a t r i c e s , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s c o n c e r n -i n g the m a t r i x d i s t r i b u t i o n s can be t e s t e d by a l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o c r i t e r i o n s u g g e s t e d by Darwin (1959, p. 413). 2[Zn.. , l o g n.. n - En. . l o g n. . - En., l o g n .. + En. l o g j k l & e j k l j . l 6 e j . l j k . a e 3 k . 3 . . °e A dot i n p l a c e o f a s u f f i x means t h a t summation has b e e n . c a r r -i e d out over the r e p l a c e d v a r i a b l e . The p r o c e d u r e f o r a p p l y i n g the l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o s to t e s t the n u l l h ypotheses c o n c e r n i n g two m a t r i c e s A and B, i s shown below. Step 1: P r e p a r e a 10 x 10 m a t r i x "A" and the second m a t r i x "B Step 2: P r e p a r e a t h i r d m a t r i x "C" w h i c h i s a c o m b i n a t i o n o f A + B. The a d d i t i o n i s p e r f o r m e d c e l l by c e l l , t h a t i s A l - 1 + B l - 1 > A l - 2 + B l - 2 - , , A 5 - 5 + B 5 - 5 * ' ' A10-10 + B10-10* Step 3: The f i r s t term "K" i s found by m u l t i p l y i n g each c e l l f r e q u e n c y by i t s own n a t u r a l l o g a r i t h m (n l o g n ) , and a d d i n g t h e s e 100 p r o d u c t s from A to the 100 p r o d u c t s from B. Step 4: The second term "L" i s found by m u l t i p l y i n g each row t o t a l by i t s own n a t u r a l l o g a r i t h m , and adding the t e n p r o d u c t from A t o the t e n p r o d u c t s from B. Step 5: The t h i r d term "M" i s found by m u l t i p l y i n g each c e l l f r e q u e n c y i n the C m a t r i x by i t s own n a t u r a l l o g a r i t h m , and a d d i n g the 100 p r o d u c t s . Step 6: The f o u r t h term "N" i s found by m u l t i p l y i n g each row t o t a l o f m a t r i x C by i t s own n a t u r a l l o g a r i t h m and a d d i n g the t e n p r o d u c t s . Step 7: The terms are combined as i n d i c a t e d , t h a t i s , 2[K - L - M + N]. I f l o g a r i t h m s to the base t e n are u s e d , the f o r m u l a becomes 4.605[K - L - M + N]. Step 8: For two 10 x 10 m a t r i c e s , t h i s c r i t e r i o n has a sampl-i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i - s q u a r e a t 90 degrees o f freedom. S i n c e C h i - s q u a r e approaches a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r h i g h e r degrees o f freedom, the above c r i t e r i o n can be c o n v e r t e d t o a s t a n d a r d s c o r e " z " as f o l l o w s : z = /2x /2n - 1, where n = s ( s - 1) and s i s the number of c a t e g o r i e s . F o r two 166 10 x 10 m a t r i c e s , t h i s f o r m u l a becomes z = [2x2]1'2 - 13.379 . Khen z i s 2.58 or l a r g e r , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s r e j e c t e d a t the 0.01 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . The a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t e s t t o more than two m a t r i c e s i s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . Term K i n c l u d e s the c e l l by c e l l a d d i t i o n of a l l m a t r i c e s . Term L i n c l u d e s the row by row a d d i t i o n of a l l m a t r i c e s . Term M i s c a l c u l a t e d from a s i n g l e , combined m a t r i x i n w h i c h the c e l l t o t a l s are d e t e r m i n e d by the a d d i t i o n o f f r e q u e n c i e s i n the c o r r e s p o n d i n g c e l l s o f the i n d i v i d u a l mat-r i c e s . Term N f o l l o w s the same p r o c e d u r e w i t h the row t o t a l s o f the combined m a t r i x . The degrees' of freedom are s ( s - l ) ( r - l ) ; s i s the number o f c a t e g o r i e s and r i s the number o f m a t r i c e s . 167 ESTIMATING INTER-OBSERVER RELIABILITY BY SCOTT'S METHOD USING PERCENT F l a n d e r s (1966, pp. 13-15) has found S c o t t ' s method o f e s t i m a t i n g i n t e r - o b s e r v e r r e l i a b i l i t y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s because i t can be adapted t o p e r c e n t f i g u r e s , can be e s t i m a t e d r a p i d l y i n the f i e l d , and i s s e n s i t i v e a t h i g h e r l e v e l s o f r e l i a b i l i t y . S c o t t c a l l s h i s c o e f f i c i e n t " p i " and i t i s d e t e r m i n e d by the two fo r m u l a e below: P - P r i ^ TT = _o e_ (1) 100 - P e P i s the p e r c e n t a g e o f agreement, and P g i s the p e r c e n t a g e o? agreement e x p e c t e d by chance w h i c h i s found by s q u a r i n g the p r o p o r t i o n o f t a l l i e s i n each c a t e g o r y , summing t h e s e over a l l c a t e g o r i e s , and m u l t i p l y i n g by 100. P e = 100 s p? (2) i = l In f o r m u l a two t h e r e are k c a t e g o r i e s and p- i s the p r o -p o r t i o n o f t a l l i e s f a l l i n g i n t o each c a t e g o r y . I T , i n f o r m u l a one, can be e x p r e s s e d i n words as the amount t h a t two o b s e r -v e r s exceeded chance agreement d i v i d e d by the amount t h a t p e r f e c t agreement exceeds chance. 168 INTER-OBSERVER RELLABILITY CALCULATED BY SCOTT'S METHOD USING PERCENT Direct Instructor Influence, Goals -- Group 1 (Avg. % ) 2 Category Observer 1 Observer 2 % 1 % 2 % D i f f . 100 1 3 5 0.8 1.4 0.6 .012 2 26 37 7.2 10.3 3.1 .766 3 29 32 8.1 8.9 0.8 .723 4 228 215 63.3 59.7 3.6 37.823 5 10 13 2.8 3.6 0.8 .102 6 4 5 1.1 1.4 0.3 .016 7 43 38 11.9 10.6 1.3 1.266 8 10 9 2.8 2.5 0.3 .070 9 7 6 1.9 1.7 0.2 .032 Totals 360 360 100.0 100.0 11.0 40.810 TT = [100 - 11] - 40.8 = 0.81 100 - 40.8 Direct Instructor Influence, Goals -•- Group 2 (Avg. % ) 2 Category Observer 1 Observer 2 % 1 % 2 % D i f f . 100 1 9 9 2.0 2.0 0.0 .040 2 50 36 11.2 8.1 3.1 .931 3 29 31 6.5 6.9 0.4 .449 4 294 310 65.9 69.4 3.5 45.765 5 5 3 1.1 0.7 0.4 .008 6 11 10 2.5 2.2 0.3 .055 7 26 28 5.8 6.3 0.8 .366 8 8 7 1.8 1.6 0.2 .029 9 14 13 3.1 2.9 0.2 .090 Totals 446 447 100.0 100.0 8.9 47.733 TT = 0.82 169 Direct Instructor Influence, No Goals -- Group 1 (Avg. %)2 Category Observer 1 Observer 2 % 1 % 2 % D i f f . 100 1 5 7 0.9 1.3 0.4 .012 2 73 70 13.6 13.0 0.6 1.769 3 36 37 6.7 6.9 0.2 .462 4 344 348 64.2 64.8 0.6 41.603 5 3 3 0.6 0.6 0.0 .004 6 5 6 0.9 1.1 0.2 .010 7 36 32 6.7 6.0 0.7 .403 8 28 27 5.2 5.0 0.2 .260 9 6 7 1.1 1.3 0.2 .014 Totals 536 537 100.0 100.0 3.1 44.537 Tr = 0.87 Direct Instructor Influence, No Goals -- Group 2 Category Observer 1 Observer 2 % 1 % 2 % D i f f . (Avg. 1)2 100 1 8 10 1.4 1.8 0.4 .026 2 38 52 6.8 9.4 2.6 • .656 3 43 49 7.7 8.8 1.1 .681 4 390 360 70.0 65.0 5.0 45.563 5 0 5 0.0 0.9 0.9 .002 6 7 5 1.3 0.9 0.4 .012 7 43 45 7.7 8.1 0.4 .624 8 21 19 3.8 3.4 0.4 .130 9 7 9 1.3 1.6 0.3 .021 Totals 557 554 100.0 100.0 11.5 47.715 IT = 0.89 170 Indirect Instructor Influence, Goals -- Group 1 (Avg. % ) 2 Category Observer 1 Observer 2 % 1 % 2 % D i f f . 100 1 35 36 5.6 5.8 0.2 .325 2 162 156 26.1 25.1 1.0 6.554 3 40 39 6.5. 6.3 0.2 .410 4 85 80 13.7 12.9 0.8 1.769 ' 5 5 5 0.8 0.8 0.0 .006 6 5 6 0.8 1.0 0.2 .008 7 27 22 4.4 3.5 0.9 .156 8 250 262 40.3 42.1 1.0 16.974 9 11 16 1.8 2.6 0.8 .048 Totals 620 622 100.0 100.0 5.9 26.250 TT = 0.92 Indirect Instructor Influence, Goals -- Group 2 (Avg. % ) 2 Category Observer 1 Observer 2 % 1 % 2 % D i f f . 100 1 22 19 3.8 3.3 0.5 .126 2 122 130 21.1 22.3 1.2 4.708 3 49 47 8;5 8.0 0.5 .680 4 47 50 8.1 8.6 0.5 .697 5 1 0 0.2 0.0 0.2 .000 6 2 3 0.4 0.5 0.1 .002 7 42 44 7.3 7.5 0.2 .548 8 287 283 49.6 48.5 1.1 24.059 9 1 8 1.2 1.4 0.2 .017 Totals 579 584 100.0 100.0 4.5 30.837 TT = 0.93 171 Indirect Instructor Influence, No Goals -- Group 1 (Avg- % ) 2 Category Observer 1 Observer 2 % 1 % 2 % D i f f . IUD 1 17 19 2.9 3.2 0.3 .093 2 129 124 21.9 20.9 1.0 4.580 3 37 39 6.3 6.6 0.3 .416 4 39 30 6.6 5.1 1.5 .342 5 0 4 0.0 0.7 0.7 .001 6 6 8 1.0 1.4 0.3 .014 7 32 26 5.4 4.4 1.0 .240 8 324 340 55.1 57.4 2.3 31.640 9 4 2 0.7 0.3 0.4 .003 Totals 588 592 100.0 100.0 7.8 37.329 TT = 0.87 Indirect Instructor Influence, No Goals -- Group 2 (Avg. % ) 2 Category Observer 1 Observer 2 % 1 % 2 % D i f f . 100" 1 38 36 7.8 7.3 0.4 .570 2 96 112 19.6 22.8 3.2 4.494 3 62 63 12.7 12.8 0.1 1.626 4 108 100 22.1 20.4 1.7 4.516 5 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .000 6 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .000 7 46 48 9.4 9.8 0.4 .922 8 120 110 24.5 22.4 2.1 5.499 9 19 22 3.9 4.5 0.6 .176 Totals 489 491 100.0 100.0 8.5 17.803 TT = 0.89 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101425/manifest

Comment

Related Items