UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of the evaluation of student work habits in British Columbia public schools Temple, Roy Henry 1961

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1961_A8 T3 S8.pdf [ 3.8MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106171.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106171-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106171-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106171-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106171-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106171-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106171-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106171-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106171.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF THE EVALUATION OF STUDENT WORK HABITS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS by Roy Henry Temple B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1931 B.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1955 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Education T!7e accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1961 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 3, Canada. ABSTRACT The public schools of British Columbia are required to evaluate and report work habits on the Pupil Report Cards. The schools have been left to devise their own methods. This thesis is a study of how the schools carry out this requirement. Its particular concern is to determine whether the schools are reporting work habits, what they believe they are assessing as work habits, what evaluating methods they are using and how much time and energy is devoted to this task. The study includes an outline of the development of w ork habit re-porting in the U. S. as part of a trend towards more comprehensive re-porting. Such reporting was found to be widespread and reasons for this are offered. Significant features in the development of suchreporting in B.C. are noted. Some conclusions relating to this trend include the fact that most B.C. schools are attempting to report work habits, they are seeking to develop methods of assessment and there is need for them to be guided in these efforts for much of i t is wasted. How B. C. schools define work habits is reported and each definition is examined. The study suggests a definition that might be acceptable to a l l schools. Responding principals found the task of defining work habits to be difficult. The items found in these definitions are studied and a l i s t that might be used by a l l schools is suggested. How U.S. schools have siected work habit items and some reasons for t heir selection are reported. It was found that many B.C. schools are reporting items that cannot be considered as work habits. The evaluating methods used by schools are examined. These included! the method of comparing scholastic ability and present subject achievement; the method of comparing present subject achievement and past subject achieve-ment; the method of comparing present subject achievement and subject ability as shown by standardized achievement tests; the method of using a check l i s t ; and the method of subjective evaluation. The merit of each is examined. Be-cause the f i r s t three of these methods f a i l to reveal the work habits that could affect achievement and should be reported to parents, and because schools reported using these in unnecessary combinations with other methods, the study concludes that much time and energy now being expended in this direction is of doubtful value. The check l i s t was found to be the most popular method. Its adoption by a l l s chools is suggested. The study examines the provisions for nark habit reporting on the B.C. Pupil Report Cards. Each card is criticized as an instrument for reporting these habits. The conclusion is that the present intermediate and secon-dary cards should be amended in order that work habit reporting may be properly done. The study suggests that the academic achievement of B.C. school children might be improved i f actual work habits could be reported, and that they could be reported i f a check l i s t of habits was a part of the report. i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author vdshes to thank the 233 busy principals who found time to answer the questionnaire. v.. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . 1 The Development of "fork Habit Reporting . . . . . . . . 1 The Amount and Nature of Work Habit H© porting o * * o « « « o o e « « 0 » a o « e * « « « 3 The Reason f o r Work Habit Reporting . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Development of Work Habit Reporting 121 33 • C o o o « « o o « o e * e » o o a « « « » e » * ^ The Purpose of the Study , 10 II THE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . 12 Construction 12 Response . . . . . . . . . . 14 II I AN ANALYSIS OF THE WORK HABIT DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . 16 IV ITEMS USED IN WORK HABIT REPORTING 25 Some Reasons f o r Using Items . . . . . . 25 Some Ways That Schools Choose Items 26 Some Items Reported by U. S. Schools 26 The Items That B. C. Schools Report 28 V ANALYSIS OF EVALUATING PRACTICES . . . . . 35 VI PROVISION FOR WORK HABIT REPORTING ON THE REPORT CARD . . 46 VII SOME FEATURES OF THE WORK HABIT LITERATURE 59 VIII CONCLUSIONS 62 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. The Questionnaire • ^ 4 O O 1 v i LIST OF TABLES TABLE P A G S I . Frequencies of Offered D e f i n i t i o n s . . . . . . . . . 18 I I . Frequencies of Items i n Offered D e f i n i t i o n s . . . . 29 I I I . Frequencies of Check L i s t Items i n Returns that Offered Mo D e f i n i t i o n s . o . . . . . . . . . 30 IV. Frequencies of the Tv/elve Check L i s t Items i n Offered D e f i n i t i o n s 30 V. The Twelve Check L i s t Items Collected From R.Gij"urns o o © « » o * » « « o * o * « o o o » o * 33 VI. Reporting Provisions on the Primary Report C 8.rd o . o o o o . . . » . e . o . o . o e o . . 51 VII. Reporting Provisions on the Intermediate Report Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 VIIIo Total Questionnaire Frequencies . . . . . . . . . . 68 O O O O O CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I THE DEVELOPMENT OF WORK HABIT REPORTING Work habits mean the e f f o r t s that c h i l d r e n make and the methods they use when carrying out the tasks of the school. They are some of the non-academic factors now being reported by schools. I t has long been a habit of teachers, when making reports to parents, to t e l l them more about t h e i r c h i l d r e n than academic achievment. They have done t h i s i n t e n t i o n a l l y or u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y . Harold Rugg, i n a 1915 study of teachers marks and marking systems, said; "Teachers' grades measure complex or blanket a b i l i t i e s . Teachers intend to use actual achievment i n school subjects as the basis of t h e i r marks, but many other factors enter into t h e i r evaluat-ions." 1 In 1929 John S. Herron, reporting a study of pupil r a t i n g by teachers wrote; "Many teachers consciously consider e f f o r t , a t t i t u d e and other f a c t -ors i n assessing marks and some are unconsciously affected by sim-i l a r f a c t o r s . " 2 These studies i n d i c a t e that reporting on such factors as work habits i s not a recent innovation. They also suggest that these non-academic factors were part of the actual achievment mark. A change i n t h i s method of reporting occurred i n the present cen-tury. Studies show that since 1930 there has been a tendency for Ameri-can schools to report academic achievement and work habits separately on the report card. This method of reporting has been the subject of 1 Rugg, Harold 0. "Teachers' Marks and Marking Systems". Ed. Adm. Sup. 1: 1915, pp 117-142, 2 Herron, John S. "How Teachers Rate Their P u p i l s " . Dept. E l . Sen. P r i n c i p a l . B.8: 235-239": 2 considerable study, experimentation and l i t e r a t u r e , even though Robert 0. Evans i s reported by Harris to the contrary, when i n 19 38 Evans ex-pressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the amount when he if/rote, 3 "Reporting t o parents i s the most retarded phase of American education". Chester H a r r i s , i n a summary of reporting changes i n t h i s century says; "In general, opinion i n the t h i r t i e s favoured the use of achieve-ment as the basis f o r academic marks, with other behaviours rated separately". 4 During the 1940s t h i s tendency to r e s t r i c t the academic mark s o l e l y t o achievement and t o report such things as e f f o r t and habits i n separate ratings continued. This aptly describes the trend today. Such a reporting change, quite n a t u r a l l y , resulted i n the practice of reporting much more about the c h i l d than was heretofore attempted. 5 Traxler, i n 1957, refers t o t h i s comprehensive reporting and claims that studies show a general practice of attempting t o evaluate much more than subject matter achievement. Harris claims that more emphasis has been placed on the assessment of personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s during the l a s t three decades of t h i s century than was the case i n e a r l i e r years. Another i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t of t h i s trend that should be mentioned was a tendency to consider the non-academic factors as being as important as the academio. Indeed, a l a t e r reference shows that i n the minds of some educators they are more important. 3 H a r r i s , Chester W. Encyclopedia of Educational Research, McMillan, 1960, p.786 Evans, Robert 0. "Practices. Trends and Issues i n Reporting to  Parents on the Welfare of the C h i l d i n School". Teachers College, C o l -umbia University, New York, 1938. 4 I b i d , p.786 5 Tr a x l e r , Arthur E. "Techniques of Guidance". Harper, 1957, p.236. I I THE AMOUNT AND NATURE OF WORK HABIT REPORTING 3 The p r a c t i c e of comprehensive reporting seems to be wide-spread. An i n d i c a t i o n of t h i s i s found i n two studies. Roelfs reviewed hundreds of Junior High School report cards i n 1955. He noted; "That behaviour ratings appeared i n ninety percent of these cards, that changes i n reporting were co n s i s t e n t l y i n the d i r e c t i o n away from the t r a d i t i o n a l report card and p e r s i s t e n t l y towards more i n -formal means of reporting; that instead of a singl e r a t i n g f o r each subject a separate evaluation was given f o r academic, for-s k i l l s and for habits and goals i n each subject; that t h i s ap-peared i n 3.4 percent of cards i n 1943, 9 percent i n 1948 and 20 percent i n 1953". 6 He also found that comprehensive reporting had been c a r r i e d to the extreme of using i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g cards f o r each subject i n 17 percent of the cards i n 1950 and i n 29 percent i n 1955. Further evidence that t h i s practice i s well-established was given by 7 George E. H i l l i n 1935. He-found that t r a i t s or habits vrere reported on 98 percent of the Elementary, 86 percent of the Junior High and 69 percent of the Senior High cards, i n a t o t a l of 443 that he examined. An i n d i c a t i o n that the practice may be getting s l i g h t l y out of control i s expressed by Roelfs, who wrote that; "Teachers and administrators are expressing concern that reporting to parents i s becoming too complicated and laborious, but progress i n the d i r e c t i o n of s i m p l i c i t y i s not yet evident". J I I THE REASON FOR WORK HABIT REPORTING An examination of the reasons why reports are now giving more i n -formation suggests that a changing educational philosophy and an attempt 6 Roelfs, R. M. "Trends i n Junior High School Progress Reporting". J.Ed.Res. 49, 1955, p.241-249. 7 H i l l , George E. "The Report Card i n Present P r a c t i c e " . Educ. Method, 15 D e c , 1935, p. 115-131. 4 to b r i n g marking and reporting i n t o harmony with i t may be the most im-portant. The Gestalt Psychology, John Dewey's philosophy and experinient-alism, have contributed to changes i n educational objectives that r e -cognize the a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge as being of l e s s e r importance than the development of habits or processes by which i t i s acquired. Educators who subscribe to t h i s idea believe that education i s a "preparation f o r l i f e " , and that i t i s concerned with the development of the "whole c h i l d " and not j u s t the mind. The manner i n which Experimentalism points up the importance of work habits i s given by H a r r i s . He writes that; "According t o Experimentalism, knowledge i s gained by making ap-propriate, active responses t o s i t u a t i o n s with which the i n d i v i d -ual i s confronted. I t involves ' t r y i n g ' and'undergoing'. Work habits are the ' t r y i n g ' and 'undergoing' which are so important t o these t h i n k e r s " . 8 Dewey's "lea r n i n g by doing" suggests a s i m i l a r idea. The reports of such t h e o r i s t s would show an i n t e r e s t i n many phases of student growth. Their evaluations have tended to be p r i m a r i l y concerned with t e l l i n g parents how t h e i r c h i l d r e n l e a r n , rather than t e l l i n g what they l e a r n . Because t h e i r ideas became popular i n America, many of the r e -ports of i t s schools nov/ evaluate the s o c i a l , emotional and physical development of children as well as t h e i r i n t e l l e c t u a l growth. Work habits have, therefore, become an important part of such reporting and the i n t e r e s t i n them seems to stem from the educational objectives of educators of l i k e or s i m i l a r t h e o r e t i c a l i n c l i n a t i o n s . More comprehensive repo r t i n g has also been aff e c t e d by two basic • Twentieth Century educational concepts which have tended to increase i t . ~ 8 H a r r i s , Chester W. "Encyclopedia of Educational Research" 1960, p. 66. 5 One of these suggests that a l l c h i l d r e n can be educated i n the sense of being educable, and the other claims that to be educated i s t h e i r r i g h t . This altruism i s the philosophy and organizational design of many educat-io n a l systems, and i t s humanitarianism i s c e r t a i n l y destined to make i t the basis of more of them. Such exalted and benevolent proposals place a heavy r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on a state, f o r they postulate that a l l c h i l d r e n must be brought i n t o the school systems and that every attempt must be made to educate each one to the l i m i t of capacity. The second of these i d e a l s w i l l not be r e a l i z e d unless a great deal of attention i s given to the development of the work habits that can make i t p o s s i b l e . Another reason f o r the increasing educational i n t e r e s t i n other than s t r i c t l y academic concerns i s the growing importance of education. This i n t e r e s t has been accelerated by the rate and nature of technological development i n t h i s century and by i n t e r n a t i o n a l developments. I t can be said to be both i n d i v i d u a l l y and n a t i o n a l l y i n s p i r e d . I t s i n d i v i d u a l man-i f e s t a t i o n i s the growing r e a l i z a t i o n by greater numbers of people that personal adjustment to and success i n t h i s s p e c i a l i z e d world requires more education. This i s one of the reasons why writers report a growing parental i n t e r e s t i n the school, and a parental demand for more compre-hensive reporting. I t s national manifestation i s a need f o r states to assure t h e i r s u r v i v a l i n the "Gold War" and "Peaceful Coexistence" by making education one of the weapons. Some writers do not f e e l that national s u r v i v a l l i e s i n t h i s d i r e c t -i o n . One of these, Arnold J . Toynbee, sees the f u t i l i t y of such mis-direc t e d e f f o r t s when he writes that, 9 "the world has to become 'one world' or cease to e x i s t " . He suggests that the sooner nations address 9 Toynbee, Arnold J . "Educationt The Long View". Saturday Night, Nov. 19, 1960, pp 78, 78o 6 •themselves to t h i s task the better f o r mankind. But, whether they con-tinue to seek s e c u r i t y i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l competition or i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l co-operation, e i t h e r course w i l l require t h e i r people to be better ed-ucated and t h e i r e f f o r t s i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n w i l l require federal planning, d i r e c t i o n and perhaps f i n a n c i n g t o a greater extent than i s now the case. Such national endeavours w i l l make education i n c r e a s i n g l y important. The changing educational philosophies that have increased the import-ance of non-academic factors, the new obligations of the state to educate everyone to as high a standard as possible, and the growing concern with education f o r personal and national reasons have made work habit report-i n g s i g n i f i c a n t and e s s e n t i a l . Work habits have been described i n t h i s i ntroduction as factors so c l o s e l y a l l i e d with academic achievment that even teachers intended t h e i r subject ratings to be only f o r achievement, these ratings often included work ha b i t s . I t was shown that, by 1930, there was a tendency to report such factors as work habits as d i s t i n c t l y separate e n t i t i e s , and that t h i s i s i n c r e a s i n g i n each l e v e l of American public schools. I t was also noted that, while t h i s practice developed, i t was accompanied by an i n c l i n a t i o n to consider such factors to be as important as s c h o l a s t i c achievement. An attempt was made to account f o r work habit reporting as a natural out-come of new philosophies and a growing i n t e r e s t i n education. IV THE DEVELOPMENT OF WORK HABIT REPORTING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA 7 As e a r l y as 1935, the B. C. Department of Education published and d i s -t r i b u t e d to i t s schools a report card on which work habits were to be evaluated. The use of t h i s card must have been voluntary, because some l a r g e r boards, such as Vancouver and V i c t o r i a , continued to use t h e i r own report forms on which work habits were reported, and because many schools continued to issue cards which did not report work ha b i t s . I t should be noted that B. C. schools were reporting work habits as e a r l y as American schools were reported doing so. In 1947 the present report card was adopted by the Department of Education. I t required a l l teachers i n the Public Schools of B r i t i s h Columbia to assign a r a t i n g f o r work habits when completing the P u p i l Re-port Card. This card i s a refinement of Previous work habit reporting. These habits had, previous to 1935, frequently been reported i n a section of the report card e n t i t l e d "Remarks" or "Comments", where some c r i t i c s think they should s t i l l be reported. The departmental card of 1935 was to evaluate these habits i n the c o l l e c t i v e or composite manner i n which they are now reported i n the Primary Card. This card, which i s to be used f o r the Junior Grades, I - I I I , provides f o r the reporting of work habits i n a separate section named "General Development" and not i n the section named "Progress i n School Subjects". I t d i r e c t s the teacher to consider the following items when reporting work habits: " l i s t e n s c a r e f u l l y , does cheer-f u l l y what he i s asked to do, does work neatly, f i n i s h e s work and finds new tasks when work i s done". The following four l e t t e r s and t h e i r i n t e r -pretations are t o be used: 0 (Outstanding), N (Normal), S (Slow) and U (Un-8 sa t i s f a c t o r y ) . The change which t h i s report made over those formerly used was that i t defined the work habits to be reported, i t provided a section where they would be reported and, of course, i t required that a l l teachers do i t * In the Intermediate Grades, IV-VI, the ratings f o r work habits are to be placed beside the achievement l e t t e r grade f o r each subject. These f i v e l e t t e r grades are to be used: 0 (This l e t t e r shov/s that the c h i l d i s working exceptionally w e l l ) , G (This l e t t e r shows that the work habits are good), N (This l e t t e r shows that the work habits are s a t i s f a c t o r y ) , S (This l e t t e r shows that the work habits are s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r t h i s pupil) and U (This l e t t e r shows that the work habits are d e f i n i t e l y u n s a t i s f a c t -ory) . This card, unlike the Primary card, l i s t s no work habits i t expects to be reported. In the Secondary Grades, VII-XII, these three l e t t e r s are to be used: G (Superior), N (Normal) and U (Unsatisfactory). I t l i s t s no work habits to be reported. This omission i n the Intermediate and Secondary cards i s i n t e r e s t i n g , because a Vancouver committee was responsible f o r drawing up the present cards. This committee had been using a Vancouver School Board Secondary Report Form from 1940 to 1946, which required schools i n that d i s t r i c t t o indicate the work habits f o r each subject by using these-symbols: 10 "S - Superior, (check) - S a t i s f a c t o r y , and N - U n s a t i s f a c t -ory". On page 2 of t h i s card, under the section e n t i t l e d " Growth i n Work Habits" these are l i s t e d , 11 "neatness of work; promptness i n the preparation of work; care with personal and school equipment and property; 10 Vancouver School Board - "Secondary Schools Report Form" 11 I b i d t i d i n e s s of books, lockers, work-benches, desks, e t c " . Whatever the rea-son for t h i s omission, i t means that the Department leaves a l l schools at these two l e v e l s free t o evolve t h e i r own d e f i n i t i o n s and l i s t s of work ha b i t s . A s i m i l a r freedom i s accorded a l l public schools i n respect to methods of r a t i n g work h a b i t s . The Department has i n d i c a t e d a scale of r a t i n g , but no method of a r r i v i n g at these r a t i n g s . This reporting of work habits does several things. Because the schools are compelled to i n d i c a t e factors that influence academic achieve-ment, they must give parents more information known t o the schools. I t attempts t o make t h i s reporting as complete and informative as possible at two l e v e l s by doing i t f o r each subject. I t increases the p o s s i b i l i t y that poor work habits w i l l be corrected and that s a t i s f a c t o r y ones w i l l be continued because they are known. I t attempts to focus the attention of p u p i l s , parents and teachers on these h a b i t s . I t increases the importance of these habits by considering them equal t o s c h o l a s t i c achievement, by re porting them beside achievement. By doing these, i t coerces each school i n t o organizing the d e t a i l s of a r a t i n g method. This may be an unwarrant-ed o b l i g a t i o n . This chapter has attempted to show that B r i t i s h Columbia, l i k e many American school systems, has had the usual development of work habit r e -porting and that i t s educational philosophy i s concerned with the "whole" c h i l d and not j u s t academic achievement. y .THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 1 0 The i n t e r e s t i n work habit reporting that prompted t h i s can be traced t o a desire t o answer four questions. I t has already been shown that a l l B. C. P u b l i c Schools were to evalu-ate work habits beginning i n September, 1 9 4 7 . The author suspected that, i n s p i t e of t h i s unavoidable request, some schools were not doing so. -Therefore, the f i r s t question t h i s study would answer was "How many schools were evading t h i s task?" The second question accruing from the above requirement was; "Whether the schools were evaluating s i m i l a r work habits? Would a study reveal a m u l t i p l i c i t y of work habit f a c t o r s , some uniformity or a common core of a few factors? Would a study show that schools have developed s p e c i f i c and d i f f e r i n g l i s t s of habits that meet the needs of p a r t i c u l a r schools and communities? Would these l i s t s y i e l d h a b i t u a l l y reported work habits that could be placed on the report card as a check l i s t ? " The t h i r d question that might be answered concerned the methods that schools use f o r evaluating work h a b i t s . Even i f the study did not reveal a connaturality of items considered as work habits, i t might disclose a uniformity of measuring methods. I f the study shov/ed an evaluating agree-ment, then a single method might r e s u l t that met the needs of a l l the schools. The l a s t question that an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of measuring devices might answer was "How much time and energy was being directed towards the r e -p o r t i n g of work habits?" B r i e f l y stated, the purpose of the study was to determine the follow-i n g about work habit reporting: 1. Whether the schools are evaluating work hab i t s . 11 2. What the schools believe they are assessing as work habits. 3. What evaluating methods they are using. 4. HOY/ much time and energy i s devoted t o t h i s reporting. . . . • « O 0 CHAPTER. I I 12 THE QUESTIONNAIRE I . CONSTRUCTION The questionnaire i n the Appendix was chosen as the research method. An explanation of i t s items follows. I t was made as objective as possible i n order to make i t easy t o an-swer. One b r i e f sentence stated i t s purpose; another pleaded f o r accuracy and truthfulness and a t h i r d guaranteed the anonymity so often prized by informants. I t was necessary to know how many schools were a c t u a l l y making an e f -f o r t to report work habits and, therefore, item one asked, "Does your school evaluate work habits on the report card?" Five evaluating methods were offered. These had come to the attent-ion of the author because they are curr e n t l y used i n schools. A concise explanation of each of these was placed i n section 2, (1) - (5) and the respondent was asked t o check the one or ones that h i s school used. Item (4) was the most time-consuming f o r the p r i n c i p a l s to answer be-cause i t required a check opposite each item used and an addition of those items used by the school that are not on the l i s t . I t asked the school i f i t used a check l i s t when awarding ratings f o r work habits and i t asked the nature of the items used i n the check l i s t . In item (5), the study hoped to l e a r n of methods other than those sug-gested. The most important question was purposely placed at the end. I t v/as considered important f o r the study to know what schools think they are 13 measuring and reporting as Y/ork h a b i t s . I t was also important to sustain i n t e r e s t to the very end of the questionnaire and, therefore, a l l r e p l i e s above t h i s question were considered to be a "warm-up" for, "What i s your d e f i n i t i o n of work habits?" A stamped, addressed envelope was attached to each questionnaire. In constructing the questionnaire i n t h i s manner i t was hoped that p r i n c i p a l s would get the following impressions about i t : 1. That i t was seeking precise information i n an u n o f f i c i a l manner about a matter of considerable,mutual i n t e r e s t and b e n e f i t . 2. That i t was e a s i l y answered because the questions went d i r e c t l j r to the heart of the matter. 3» That, i f the t r u t h might be unpleasant, i t wished t o reduce to a minimum the temptation t o avoid i t by s t a t i n g that any inform-ation would be treated as a confidence. The questionnaire was mailed to 435 B r i t i s h Columbia Public Schools. I t was addressed to the p r i n c i p a l s of a l l senior highs, a l l senior-junior highs, a l l j u n i o r highs and of a l l elementary schools with enrolments of over 300. I t was mailed i n sealed envelopes r e q u i r i n g the five-cent l e t t e r rate and s i m i l a r postage was placed on the return envelope. By using ten cents worth of postage per school, rather than four, i t was f e l t that p r i n c i p a l s would appreciate the author's investment and be persuaded against s e t t i n g i t l i g h t l y aside and not answering i t . I t could have been mailed to 1,115 separate public schools. There were several reasons f o r t h i s l i m i t a t i o n . The cost would have been consid-. erable. The author suspected that the l a r g e r schools would be the ones that had evolved methods for r a t i n g work ha b i t s . I t wa.s also f e l t that a l l secondary schools should be petitioned because these were the schools re-14 quired to report work habits f o r each subject f o r the greatest number of grades. The mailing breakdown was 126 secondary schools, the t o t a l i n the Province, and 309 elementary schools of the t o t a l of 958. I I RESPONSE By the end of three months ( A p r i l t o June), when the l a s t returns were received, 233, or fifty - f o v i r percent of the p r i n c i p a l s had returned the questionnaire. S ix of these reported that t h e i r schools did not mark work habits on the report cards. A s i m i l a r proportion of a l l the Public Schools i s 29. The usual tendency f o r busy respondents to answer the easy questions and to avoid those that require time and thought was noticed i n these re-turns, i n s p i t e of the f a c t that an e f f o r t was made to f a c i l i t a t e the questionnaire's completion. The most frequently completed portions were e n t i r e l y objective. When additions to or comments about suggested choices were requested, very few responded, as w i l l be seen i n the detai l e d an-a l y s i s . Not a sing l e method of evaluation was offered other than those suggested. One questionnaire was returned unanswered. The reason given by the p r i n c i p a l was that he had not been permitted by his board to answer i t . Many employees of the same board completed the return. The author made an e f f o r t to determine the percent of returns from the p r i n c i p a l s of the d i f f e r e n t types of schools. Whether the p r i n c i p a l s of one type of school were more l i k e l y to reply than those of another was considered to be a useful piece of information. This e f f o r t had to be abandoned because a postmark did not reveal the type of school i n areas where there were many schools and t h i s v/as the only means of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Therefore, i t cannot be sa i d that the returns represent a good cross section cf a l l types of schools. Throughout the analysis of these returns, i t must be remembered that i t i s based on only f i f t y - f o u r percent of those to whom the questionnaire was mailedo CHAPTER I I I 16 AN ANALYSIS OF THE WORK HABIT DEFINITIONS FOUND IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE As an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the analysis of the questionnaire returns, tv/o general findings from the l i t e r a t u r e should be mentioned, f o r they f o r e t e l l -That might be expected. They are not encouraging. More s p e c i f i c r e f e r -ences w i l l be made throughout the analysis where they p a r t i c u l a r l y apply. The l i t e r a t u r e implies that Bo C. Public Schools have been assigned a-d i f f i c u l t task, because i t suggests that non-academic factors are d i f f i c u l t to measure. Regarding t h i s , Lemeul R. Johnston says; "I t seems a l i t t l e strange to some of us that, i n s p i t e of the fact that the l e t t e r scale was introduced because teachers could not mark as accurately as the percentage scale suggested, teachers are now be-i n g asked to evaluate that which i s v a s t l y more d i f f i c u l t and more often than not defies evaluation". 1 The l i t e r a t u r e also cautions against expecting that t h i s study w i l l show a uniformity i n work habit reporting among the schools, because t h i s does not even appear i n academic reporting. No commonly accepted marking systems have emerged from a h a l f a century of i n q u i r y . Evans has several comments on t h i s . He says that; "Apparently few schools agree on what constitutes a s a t i s f a c t o r y pro-gram of reporting to parents. Differences are found i n marking sys-tems, i n types of reports, i n contents, i n r e l a t i v e emphasis given . to items, and i n forms i n which the items are reported. These d i f -ferences e x i s t within the same system and within the same school". 2 1. Johnston, Lemeul R. "Are There Better Ways of Evaluating, Record-ing, and Reporting P u p i l Progress i n Junior and Senior High Schools?" Sec. Sch.Pr. Vol. 34, 1950...March...pp.73-79 2. Evans, Robert 0. "Practices, Trends and Issues i n Reporting to  Parents on the Welfare of the C h i l d i n School". Teachers College, Columbia U., New York, 1958...p. 1 17 He suggests that; "A defensible plan of reporting to parents would seem to require that each school formulate i t s own educational aims and p r i n c i p l e s . The more common practice/vto use reports better adapted t o l o c a l condit-ions and needs". 3 Johnston quotes Wrinkle on t h i s t o p i c i n the seme manner i n his a r t i c l e j u s t referred to i n the above paragraph. "Each school has to work out i t s own forms and practices on the basis of i t s own objectives, i t s own p h i l o s -ophy, and i t s own s t a f f " . 4 In the l i g h t of these f i n d i n g and suggestions, how much uniformity pertains i n B r i t i s h Columbia? One of the purposes of t h i s study was to discover what 3 r i t i s h Columbia schools believe they are measuring when they are reporting work habits. Are they assessing the same things? One hundred and s i x t y - f o u r p r i n c i p a l s offered t h e i r own d e f i n i t i o n s . This was 72 percent of the 227 who said t h e i r schools reported these habits to parents. T h i r t y - f i v e p r i n c i p a l s offered no d e f i n i t i o n s and t h i r t y - f o u r said the check l i s t of items l i s t e d i n part 2, (4) a - l , of the question-naire was t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n . To t h i s 69, who offered no d e f i n i t i o n s of t h e i r own, must be added the s i x that said they d i d not report work habits and, therefore, offered no d e f i n i t i o n s . I f the t h i r t y - f o u r who used the check l i s t items are considered t o have submitted d e f i n i t i o n s t h i s would r a i s e the percent of those reporting to 87 and would represent 46 percent of the 435 to whom the questionnaire 3. I b i d . , p. 3 4. Johnston, Lemeul R. "Are There Better Ways of Evaluating, Record-ing, and Reporting P u p i l Progress i n Junior and Senior High Schools?" Sec. Sch.Pr. V ol. 34, March, 1950, pp. 73-79 13 was sent. I t seems reasonable t o assume that what these schools believe to be work habits i s representative of what s l l schools b e l i e v e . Before considering these d e f i n i t i o n s and t h e i r frequencies i t should be noted that twenty of the 164 d e f i n i t i o n s contained no items that could be tabulated because they were vague and i n d e f i n i t e . I t should also be noted that i f these twenty p r i n c i p a l s , who were unable t o define work habits, are added to the 69 who completed the questionnaire but omitted the d e f i n i t i o n s , they represent 40 percent of the t o t a l reported. This seems to be a rather high percentage of p r i n c i p a l s unable to p r e c i s e l y describe what t h e i r schools are reporting as work habits. This 40 percent becomes 24 i f the 34 p r i n c i -pals who chose to c a l l the check l i s t items t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s i s subtracted. Perhaps i t would be more accurate to say that these returns show that ap-proximately one quarter of the p r i n c i p a l s who completed the questionnaire were unable to define work ha b i t s . The d e f i n i t i o n s of the three quarters or 144 p r i n c i p a l s are shown i n the following t a b l e : TABLE I , Frequencies of Offered D e f i n i t i o n s D e f i n i t i o n s Frequency 1. Work habits are attitudes t o school work. 45 2. Work habits are shown by students who are working according to or beyond capacity or a b i l i t y . 36 3. Work habits are the e f f o r t s put i n t o school work. 19 4. Work habits are routines or methods of working. 16 5. Work habits are habitual approaches to work. 9 6. Work habits are ways of attacking work. 9 7. Work habits are working s k i l l s . 4 1 9 D e f i n i t i o n s Frequency 8. Work habits are adjustments t o l e a r n i n g . 3 9. Work habits are the c o r r e l a t i o n between capacity and achievement. 1 10. Work habits are responses to l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s * 1 11. T/ork habits are untaught or unlearned responses. 1 144 The table shows that " a t t i t u d e s " was used by 31 percent of the p r i n c -i p a l s . Many of these indicated that, when making a report t o parents, they preferred t o use "attitudes to school work" rather than work habits. I t must then be assumed that they are reporting on attitudes when they f i l l i n the section of the report card dealing with work ha b i t s . I t should be noted that at t i t u d e reporting i s an example of a type of work habit reporting, des-cribed l a t e r i n t h i s study, which e n t i r e l y avoids any reference to actual work habits o The tendency of these p r i n c i p a l s to substitute attitudes f o r work habits suggests that, i n t h e i r minds, there e x i s t s such a close r e l a t i o n -ship between these terms that they are interchangeable. But attitudes are not work habits. Attitudes can be the i n s p i r a t i o n f o r , the cause of, or the r e s u l t of work h a b i t s . There are examples that prove that a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between acceptable attitudes and good work habits does not always e x i s t . P u p i l s often have a commendable attitude, such as a desire t o exceed, but are unable, through l a c k of organization or through l a z i -ness, to t r a n s l a t e t h i s desire i n t o p r o f i t a b l e work ha b i t s . Such a t t i -tudes to school as the desire t o l e a r n , to succeed or t o e x c e l l , do not ne c e s s a r i l y guarantee that students w i l l work up t o a b i l i t y . High 20 achievers often have poor attitudes and low achievers good a t t i t u d e s . Attitude reporting, i n the case of these students, would not in d i c a t e the nature of the work hab i t s . I t might be wiser i f schools reported the ' actual habits instead of attitudes, because of t h i s possible confusion and because i t would be more d i f f i c u l t t o evaluate and report attitudes than actual work hab i t s . The p r i n c i p a l s who prefer attitudes are making a troublesome task even more onerous. The second d e f i n i t i o n does not define work hab i t s . I t only t e l l s who has them, f o r i t says that- students have them i f they are "working accord-i n g to or beyond capacity or a b i l i t y " . This d e f i n i t i o n , which represents the opinion of 25 percent of the p r i n c i p a l s , may indicate that a s i m i l a r percentage of B r i t i s h Columbia schools report work habits as a r e l a t i o n -ship between a b i l i t y and achievement. These schools would t e l l parents that t h e i r c h i l d r e n have work habits i f achievement equals a b i l i t y and haven't them i f i t does not equal a b i l i t y . I f a c h i l d ' s tested a b i l i t y i s "B" and achievement i s "B" or better, the work habits would be considered to be s a t i s f a c t o r y . I f a c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y i s "E" and achievement i s "E" would these schools consider the work habits to be sa t i s f a c t o r y ? The study w i l l l a t e r show that a large number of schools reported that they used such a method f o r evaluating work habits and i t w i l l be discussed i n that part of the study. This d e f i n i t i o n appears to be unsuitable because i t i s based on a questionable admission when i t re l a t e s a b i l i t y and achieve-ment for t h i s purpose, and because i t completely avoids r e f e r r i n g to the s a t i s f a c t o r y or unsatisfactory habits that should appear on the report card. 21 Nineteen p r i n c i p a l s defined work habits as "the e f f o r t s put i n t o school work". Students i n the schools of these p r i n c i p a l s would be re-ported as having work habits i f they only made an e f f o r t , even i f these e f f o r t s were misdirected, poorly organized and otherwise i n e f f i c i e n t , and r e s u l t e d i n low achievement. In such cases, would a student making such e f f o r t s but l e a r n i n g nothing be considered by these schools as hav-i n g good work habits? Do these schools wish to t e l l parents what i s im-p l i e d when they report s a t i s f a c t o r y work habits beside low achievement? The p r i n c i p a l s who described work habits as "habitual approaches to work" suggest that these habits can be learned, p r a c t i c e d and applied each time school work i s to be done and that they are a set of working s k i l l s . These approaches might include such habits as; coming to class with ad-equate equipment, s t a r t i n g quickly, showing sustained e f f o r t or persever-ance i n spite of d i f f i c u l t i e s , working without supervision, neatness, the habits of always completing work, of seeking help when i t i s r e a l l y needed and of taking pride i n -work that i s done. These are work patterns that most students could l e a r n and that teachers could report. This i s an un-derstandable d e f i n i t i o n . The d e f i n i t i o n s numbered 4 to 7 i n c l u s i v e are s i m i l a r enough t o be considered together. They also resemble the "habitual approaches", f o r they speak of routines, methods, -ways and s k i l l s that can be taught, prac t i c e d and evaluated, and that are l i k e l y to become habitual and to produce r e s u l t s . Without being d e f i n i t e , they describe items that are de-s i r a b l e . Fifty-seven, or 40 percent, of the p r i n c i p a l s ' d e f i n i t i o n s were very s i m i l a r . 22 D e f i n i t i o n s 8 and 10 describe work habits as "adjustments to l e a r n -i n g " sjid "responses t o l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s " . The value of these ".adjust-ments" and "responses" would n a t u r a l l y depend upon exactly what they were. D e f i n i t i o n 9 describes work habits as "the c o r r e l a t i o n between cap-a c i t y and achievement". I t i n f e r s that, i f the c o r r e l a t i o n i s p o s i t i v e , the work habits w i l l be good, and i f negative, they w i l l be reported as poor or u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . This d e f i n i t i o n i s r e l a t e d to an evaluating method l a t e r examined i n t h i s study. But i t should be noted here that a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between capacity and achievement does not always in d i c a t e the good work habits t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i n f e r s . There are c h i l d -ren of tested a b i l i t y who achieve at a s i m i l a r l e v e l but whose work habits are poor. This d e f i n i t i o n i s an assumption about work habits and i s not a r a t i o n a l e . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that, while only one p r i n c i p a l of-fered t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , one hundred and f o r t y i n d i c a t e d t h e i r schools used t h i s method when marking and reporting work ha b i t s . The l a s t d e f i n i t i o n , number 11, says that "work habits are untaught or unlearned responses" t o school work. This concept i s at variance with the factors that most p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d as work habits i n the check l i s t . Such habits as neatness, promptness and perseverence are often well established i n pre-school c h i l d r e n and would seem to have been en-vironmentally learned as a r e s u l t of home t r a i n i n g . But the most i n t e r -e s t i n g question t h i s d e f i n i t i o n suggests i s how p r i n c i p a l s would indi c a t e to parents the manner i n which unlearned or untaught habits are to be im-proved. 23 The f i r s t conclusion to be drawn from these d e f i n i t i o n s i s that many of these schools would have d i f f i c u l t y t r a n s l a t i n g them i n t o evaluated factors f o r reports. Table I shows that 42 of the d e f i n i t i o n s i n d i c a t e d no factors that the schools could report as work habits. T h i r t y - s i x of these schools would only report that students were working according to or beyond capacity or a b i l i t y . The rest of these 42, who said that work habits were adjustments or responses to l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s , also i n -dicate nothing to report. The second conclusion has to do with variations i n the d e f i n i t i o n s . Of the 144 d e f i n i t i o n s 102 a c t u a l l y contained items that could be report-ed. But these d i f f e r e d considerably. The table shows that 45 would r e -port attitudes, 19 v/ould report e f f o r t s end the 38, who said that work habits were routines, habitual approaches, ways of attacking work and working s k i l l s , would report methods. The conclusion to be drawn from t h i s v a r i a t i o n i s that i f i t would be d i f f i c u l t t o frame a d e f i n i t i o n that v/ould s a t i s f y the 102 p r i n c i p a l s i t would be e s p e c i a l l y d i f f i c u l t to frame one f o r a l l the schools. In s p i t e of the above d i f f i c u l t y the question suggested by these v a r i a t i o n s i s whether i t serves the best i n t e r e s t s of a school system. '.There educational objectives are stated, which i s the case i n B. C , i s i t not possible to outline a s p e c i f i c number of work habits that would a s s i s t a l l schools i n the r e a l i z a t i o n of these objectives? I f the cause of education i s served by reporting and emphasizing the work habits that lend to the r e a l i z a t i o n of objectives would i t not be wise i f a l l teachers, 24 pupils and parents knew exactly what i s meant and measured as work habits I f t h i s were the case a l l pupils would be s i m i l a r l y rated by a l l schools i n the province and a l l parents would know what work habits the school ex pects to develop. The d i v e r s i t y of these d e f i n i t i o n s seems to be greater than l o c a l v a r i a t i o n s would j u s t i f y . Does t h i s not in d i c a t e that B. C. Schools should be t h i n k i n g of the same things when reporting work habits? CHAPTER IV ITEMS USED IN WORK HABIT REPORTING This chapter i s concerned with the items schools use i n work habit reporting. I t attempts to determine why items are necessary, how these items are selected by the school, what items are being used according to the l i t e r a t u r e and what items are being used i n B. C. I . SOME REASONS FOR USING ITEMS. The f i r s t reason why items are necessary i s that broader factors are meaningless i n a report to parents. Chapter I I I showed that, when re -porting work habits, the majority of p r i n c i p a l s said they were evaluat-in g a t titudes, e f f o r t s or methods. Unless these are reduced to items, they would be questionable contributions t o p u p i l development, f o r i t would be meaningless to t e l l parents that pupils did not have the proper attitudes to school work, or that pupils made no e f f o r t s , or used im-proper or i n e f f i c i e n t methods. The attitudes, e f f o r t s and methods -would have to be s p e c i f i c a l l y described i n order to be tr a n s l a t e d i n t o d e s i r -able behaviour patterns. The second reason f o r using items i s that they can be more r e a d i l y evaluated than can general terms. This i s important i n B r i t i s h Columbia, for i t s schools are asked to measure work habits according to a f i v e -point scale at the intermediate l e v e l , and a three-point scale at the sec ondary 1evol. Evidence that t h i s type of reporting i s widespread and necessary may be found i n the writings of students of t h i s subject. They indicate that such reporting Is becoming Rore s c i e n t i f i c or objective. Cagle writes that, 1 "The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of increased comprehensiveness and greater s p e c i f i c i t y extended marking i n t o more aspects of student de-velopment with demands f o r greater d e t a i l " . Harris quotes Burton on t h i s need to be s p e c i f i c about the habits to be measured when he claims Burton recommends that, 2 "the language, used to describe the desired behaviour to be reported, be d e f i n i t e enough to set up an outcome which could be evaluated". 3 Rush points out that since any marking system i s a r b i t -rary, the factors considered i n any system must be defined i n d e t a i l . These writers suggest that i f evaluation Is t o increase the effectiveness of student l e a r n i n g and be an aid to maximum growth i t w i l l more e f f e c t -i v e l y do t h i s i f i t i s p r e c i s e . I I . .SOME V/AYS THAT SCHOOLS CHOOSE ITEMS. The second problem ref e r s t o the choice of items to be used by any school reporting work hab i t s . The l i t e r a t u r e indicates that they w i l l be determined by the educational objectives of the school, that they w i l l serve the i n t e r e s t s of the student and that they should be determined co-operatively by the school, students and; the parents. Bolmeier states that, 4 "the marks must be precise enough to be meaningful and that educational 1. Cagle, Dan F. "How May \7e Make the Evaluation and Reporting of Student Achievement More Meaningful?"' Hat. Assoc. Sec. Sch. Pr. B. 39, A p r i l , 1955, p. 24-27. 2. H a r r i s , Chester W. "Encyclopedia of Educational Research". McMillan, 1960, p. 787 3. Rush, Gil e s M. "Objectives or New Type Examinations". Scott, 1929, p. 478. 4. and 6. Bolmeier, Edward C. " P r i n c i p l e s P e r t a i n i n g to Marking and Reporting P u p i l Progress". Sch. R. 59, 1951, p. 15-24. 26 objectives themselves should determine what and how many factors should be measured". Evans says that, 5 "A defensible plan of reporting to par-ents would seem to require that each school formulate i t s own educational aims and p r i n c i p l e s " and that, "the more common practice i s to use r e -ports b e t t e r adapted t o l o c a l conditions and needs". While these r e f e r -ences apply to the reporting of a l l aspects of student growth, they do i n -f e r that work habit r e p o r t i n g w i l l be attuned to the requirements of each school. Some writers are d e f i n i t e that t h i s reporting be designed to aid the p u p i l . Bolmeier says, 6 "that marks must be designed and used t o ben-e f i t the student rather than the teacher". Morris notes, 7 "that new developments i n educational philosophy had changed the purpose of report-i n g to i n c r e a s i n g the effectiveness of student l e a r n i n g " . Harris quotes Wrinkle's Colorado State College study on reporting to show how each school should choose i t s goals: "The f i r s t step i n the improvement of marking i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of objectives, both general and s p e c i f i c , i n terms of student be-haviour. The importance of e s t a b l i s h i n g behaviour goals i s r e -cognized by writers as basic to the process of evaluation. They stress that these goals should be acceptable to and understood by the school, the students and the parents. They should be co-operatively e s t a b l i s h e d " . 8 I I I . SOME ITEMS REPORTED BY U. S. SCHOOLS. In an attempt t o show what items schools are a c t u a l l y using when 5. Evans, Robert 0. "Practices, Trends and Issues i n Reporting to Parents on the Welfare of the C h i l d i n School". Teachers College, C o l -umbia U. New York, 1938. 7. Morris, L u c i l e . "Evaluating and Reporting P u p i l Progress". E l . Sch. J . 53, 1952, pp. 144-149. 8. H a r r i s , Chester W. "Encyclopedia of Educational Research". 1960. 27 reporting work habits, some studies are reported i n t h i s s e c t i o n . The f i r s t one by George E. H i l l , to which reference was made i n an e a r l i e r chapter t o show how common the reporting of non-academic factors had be-come, combines some character t r a i t s with work ha b i t s . The date of t h i s study, 1935, may i n d i c a t e why these t r a i t s and habits are combined. I t i s used here to show what habits were already being reported. .9 H i l l found that on 443 report cards the elementary cards used 5.5 habits and t r a i t s , Junior High cards used 5.1 and the Senior High cards used 4.2. The twelve most commonly used and t h e i r frequencies for elementary and secondary schools were as follows: The majority of these items are actual work h a b i t s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note how t h e i r frequencies vary according to the type of school. Harris l i s t s the work and study habits found i n the Pasadena Report Card. These are: 10 "makes good use of time, follows d i r e c t i o n s , works independently, l i s t e n s a t t e n t i v e l y , does neat work, uses materials wisely, 9. H i l l , George E. "The Report Card i n Present P r a c t i c e " . Educat-i o n a l Method, 15 Dec. 1935, pp. 115-131. 10. H a r r i s , Chester W. "Encyclopedia of Educational Research". 1960. Habits and T r a i t s Industry or e f f o r t Courtesy Conduct or deportment Neatness R e l i a b i l i t y Co-operation Obedience Promptness Proper use of time Attention S e l f - c o n t r o l Persistence Elementary Junior and Senior High 1 1 2 3 3 6 4 2 5 5 6 4 7 10 8 11 9 6 10 7 11 12 12 8 i s eager to l e a r n and i s thorough i n h i s work". This i s an example of the complete separation of work habits from other non-academic f a c t o r s . Harris also has an example of a supplementary page to accompany the usual report, i n which study habits, attitudes and i n t e r e s t s , and adjustment or c i t i z e n s h i p are divided i n t o three separate groups of items that appear on separate parts of the page. These are examples of what schools are rep o r t i n g i n t h e i r e f f o r t s to itemize work habits and of how they are attempting t o keep these items i n non-academic categories. -IV. THE ITEMS THAT B. C. SCHOOLS ARE REPORTING. When answering the question, "What i s your d e f i n i t i o n of work habits?", i n part 3 of the questionnaire, 164 p r i n c i p a l s offered spec-i f i c items. These are divided i n t o three groups f o r study convenience. In the f i r s t are the items suggested by the d e f i n i t i o n s of the 164 p r i n c -i p a l s . In the second are the items from the check l i s t i n part 2, (4) a-1 of the questionnaire, used by p r i n c i p a l s who offered no d e f i n i t i o n s . In group 3 are the frequencies of the check l i s t items i n the returns of the entire 227 p r i n c i p a l s . The study wished t o know these items. I t hoped they would indi c a t e a l i s t s u f f i c i e n t l y short and consistent to s a t i s f y the majority of p r i n c i p a l s , ajid that could be used as a r a t i n g s c a l e . This i s the reason they are examined here. Table 2 shows the frequencies of items that appeared i n the d e f i n i t i o n s offered by 164 p r i n c i p a l s referred t o as group one. .Table 2 Frequencies of Items i n Offered D e f i n i t i o n s Items Frequency 1. Completes assigned tasks 35 2. Neatness 29 3. Systematic or e f f i c i e n t organization of work 27 4. Co-operation 20 5. Promptness 15 6. Industriousness 14 7. A b i l i t y to carry out i n s t r u c t i o n s 10 8. Attentiveness 9 9. Pride i n work well done 9 10. Interest 8 11. Carefulness 8 12. Concentration 8 13. Correction of errors 7 14. Perseverance 7 15. Eagerness 7 16. Does not need supervision 6 17. Preparedness f o r class 5 18o Does regular study and review 5 19. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y 4 20. Regularity of e f f o r t 4 21. F r e e l y undertakes assigned tasks 4 22. Alertness 3 23. Orderliness 3 24. Appreciates opportunity f o r an education 2 25. Achievement 2 26. Uniformity 1 27. Resourcefulness 1 28. Politeness 1 29. Dependability 1 30. Readiness to a s s i s t others 1 31. Inquisitlveness 1 32. Asks help 1 Table 3 shows the frequencies of items i n the check l i s t offered i n the questionnaire and chosen by p r i n c i p a l s who submitted no d e f i n i t i o n s . Table 3 Frequencies of Check L i s t Items Chosen by  the 35 P r i n c i p a l s who Offered no D e f i n i t i o n s . Items Frequency 1. Perseverance 34 2. Comes prepared t o work 33 3. Takes pride i n doing work well 33 4. Promptly begins work 33 5. Co-operates i n class 33 6. Attentiveness 32 7. Neatness 32 8. Completes assigned tasks 31 9. Completes assigned tasks on time 31 10. Works without supervision 31 11. Seeks extra help 29 12. Does regular study beyond assigned tasks 25 • Table 4 has the frequencies of the twelve check l i s t items i n the returns of the 227 p r i n c i p a l s . Table 4 . Frequencies of the Twelve Check L i s t Items i n a l l Returns • Items Frequency 1. Does work neatly 188 2. Pays attention i n class 188 3. Comes to class prepared to work 185 4. Completes assigned tasks 184 5. Completes assigned tasks on time 181 6. Co-operates i n class 181 7. Perseveres i n spite of d i f f i c u l t i e s 177 8. Takes pride i n work well done 167 9. Promptly begins assigned tasks 166 10. Works without supervision 158 11. Seeks extra help 115 12. Does regular home study beyond assigned tasks 107 31 The check l i s t items were placed i n the questionnaire to suggest items that schools might consider important, and to stimulate the res-pondent i n t o o f f e r i n g others. P r i n c i p a l s did offe r two and one-half times as many as those suggested. This might be considered to be an ex-cessive number of items and to indicate a d i f f i c u l t y i n d e f i n i n g -work ha b i t s . I t might also suggest a d i f f i c u l t y i n drawing up a concise r a t -i n g scale based on common items i n B. C. schools. I t i n f e r s that any such l i s t w i l l have to d i f f e r i n content and importance of items accord-ing to the type of school i n which i t i s to be used, because some items seem to apply at the elementary l e v e l and some at the secondary. Schools may vary enough t o make a single l i s t of items inapplicable to a l l . An i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h i s i s the tendency f o r schools to exagger-ate the importance of items that appear to be most l a c k i n g i n i t s classes. For instance, some secondary schools are exceedingly concerned with the i n a b i l i t y of t h e i r students to indulge i n regular study and review with-out s p e c i f i c assignments. Because they believe that no item af f e c t s achievement as much, they make a f e t i s h of t h i s a b i l i t y to d i s t i n g u i s h between homework (assigned tasks) a.nd home study (voluntary study and re-view) . This p a r t i a l i t y f o r s p e c i a l items may p a r t l y explain t h e i r num-ber i n the returns. In s p i t e of these d i f f i c u l t i e s , an examination of the items suggests that a shorter l i s t i s possi b l e . Possible omissions and s i m i l a r i t i e s so r e a d i l y suggest themselves that t h i s lengthy l i s t can be reduced. The twelve check l i s t items were acceptable i n importance i f not i n number. A l l of them, except " i " and " j " , appear i n the top twenty of the thirty-two offered by the schools and, therefore, can be sa i d t o 32 s a t i s f y the majority of the responding schools. Borne of the thirty-two items can be eliminated becsjuse they have no place i n a work habit d e f i n i t i o n . Achievement, number 25, i s a r e s u l t rather than a component of work habits. Politeness i s a behaviour item. Several of the returns e s p e c i a l l y warned that work habits should not be confused with behaviour. While i t i s obvious that there i s an overlap-ping of items i n these two f i e l d s , i t i s often a f a c t that behaviour not only influences but often e n t i r e l y determines the estimation of work' habits. This makes the evaluation rather meaningless. There are also, In t h i s lengthy l i s t , several items so s i m i l a r as to be combined. "Orderliness" and "uniformity", used i n the sense of working i n an orderly manner, are adequately covered by item 3 — systematic or e f f i c i e n t organization of work. "Dependability", " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , " f r e e -l y undertakes unassigned tasks", "does regular home study and reviev/ing", as well as "industriousness" end s u f f i c i e n t l y a l l i e d to be combined. "Resourcefulness" and "asks help" could be one item. "Alertness", "eager-ness", " i n t e r e s t " and "attentiveness" are close enough i n meaning to be one item. Such a reduction of the l i s t observes the i n t e n t i o n and could not be described as a d i s t o r t i o n of the o r i g i n a l . By e l i m i n a t i n g items that are not work habits, by combining those that are s i m i l a r and by omitting those items of lowest frequency, the f o l l o w i n g l i s t i s a reasonable consolidation of the thirty-two items i n t o ti'/elve. These are varied enough to be used at a l l grade l e v e l s and to be adapted to the s p e c i a l needs of the school. Ta.ble 5 shows these twelve items. Table 5 The Twelve Items Collected from the O r i g i n a l Thirty-Two. 1. The pu p i l i s responsible i n showing the a b i l i t y to concentrate and persevere i n the completion of work. 2. The pupil does work neatly. 3. The pupil i s orderly and e f f i c i e n t i n planning and doing work. 4. The pupil co-operates. 5. The pupil i s prompt about beginning work and handing i n assign-ments. 6. The pupil i s industrious, undertakes unassigned tasks and does regular home study and reviewing. 7. The pupil c a r r i e s out i n s t r u c t i o n s . 8. The pupil i s attentive, eager, a l e r t and interes t e d i n c l a s s . 9. The pupil i s caref u l and takes a pride i n work well done. 10. The pupil corrects errors and p r o f i t s frcm mistakes. 11. The pupil does not require supervision. 12. The pupil comes prepared to work. This l i s t could be revised and shortened. I t has the es s e n t i a l items reported by the schools. I t could be used as an evaluating device when r a t i n g work h a b i t s . I f a school desired to express i t as a l e t t e r r a ting, i t could be numerically arranged by attaching values to each item, accord-ing t o the r e l a t i v e importance of each item determined by the school. I f such a l i s t were included i n the report cards and i t s items checked, par-ents would be better informed about the work habits of t h e i r children than i s presently the case. I t would show parents the work habits the school expects. I t would more accurately pinpoint the reason f o r the achieve-ment. The present reports do not do t h i s . This section has reduced t o twelve the thirty-two items considered by 227 p r i n c i p a l s t o have a place i n a work habits check l i s t . I t has sug-gested the p o s s i b i l i t y of such a l i s t being used by a l l schools of the province. I t has pointed out that such a l i s t could serve a useful educ-a t i o n a l purpose, because a report based on i t would indi c a t e whether a student was p r a c t i c i n g the work habits considered to be important i n school and i n l i f e . I t has shown how objective the use of such a l i s t might become and how much easier i t could make the teacher's task when r a t i n g work h a b i t s . A much-needed uniformity, that would make the r a t i n g of work habits the some i n a l l the public schools of B r i t i s h Columbia, was seen t o be possible. A decided advantage of these l i s t e d items i s that they represent habits, attitudes and s k i l l s that can be taught by any school or home wishing to improve the work habits of school c h i l d r e n . The educational demands of today's l i v i n g make such improvement necess-ary, because every c h i l d must be educated up to capacity. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF EVALUATING PRACTICES The i n t e n t i o n of t h i s section of the questionnaire was to discover the methods used by B r i t i s h Columbia Schools when they estimated work habits. I t asked p r i n c i p a l s to check which of the f i v e suggested methods was used i n t h e i r schools. The study hoped the returns would Indicate whether any single method was preferred. I f none of the suggested meth-ods described the one used by a school, the p r i n c i p a l was asked to i n -dicate others i n section (6) of part 2. These evaluating methods require some explanation. Those i n (1), (2) and (3) the method of comparing sc h o l a s t i c a b i l i t y and subject matter, the method of comparing present subject achievement with past achievement, and the method of comparing present subject achievement with subject a b i l i t y — are only i n d i c a t i o n s of a pupil's work habits. They were suggested because the author believed that some schools were i n the habit of marking work habits s o l e l y on the basis of one or more of these i n d i c a t i o n s . The study, therefore, presumed that the usual custom was for these schools to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the pairs of items com-pared i n each of these methods. I f a negative c o r r e l a t i o n existed, i t would i n d i c a t e the student had poor work h a b i t s . I f a p o s i t i v e one per-tained, the work habits would be good. The l e t t e r symbol i n d i c a t i n g the r a t i n g would then be placed on the report. Schools using t h i s routine as a r a t i n g scale would a c t u a l l y be using a device that merely indicated a student might or might not have good or poor work hab i t s . Having no proof, that which was only a hypothesis would, by such methods, be 36 reported as a f a c t . This method i s of questionable value because i t does not do what i s intended. I t does not report work habits. THE METHOD OF COMPARING SCHOLASTIC ABILITY MD SUBJECT ACHIEVEMENT. , I f a p r i n c i p a l i n d i c a t e d that his school used t h i s method, the actual subject achievement l e t t e r grade was compared with the a b i l i t y - t o - l e a r n or i n t e l l i g e n c e quotient l e t t e r grade. I f the achievement l e t t e r grade was s u b s t a n t i a l l y above or below the a b i l i t y - t o - l e a r n , i t suggested the pres-ence or absence of work ha b i t s . One hundred and f o r t y , or 62 percent of the 227 p r i n c i p a l s , claimed they used t h i s method i n t h e i r schools. This method i s , therefore, very popular and i t s fashionableness prompts some comments by way of cautioning against i t s exclusive use as a measuring device. A b i l i t y - t o - l e a r n t e s t scores are an approximation of a student's gen-e r a l s c h o l a s t i c a b i l i t y . They are not u s u a l l y interpreted as represent-ing expected a b i l i t y i n a l l school subjects. Factors other than i n t e l l i -gence also determine success i n a subject f i e l d . A great difference be-tween i n t e l l i g e n c e and subject achievement should only suggest t o a teach-er that work habits may be causing the d i f f e r e n c e . I t i s a simple, but by no means cer t a i n , i n d i c a t i o n . I t s s i m p l i c i t y may have recommended i t to many schools as the only c r i t e r i a f o r marking work habits, e s p e c i a l l y when more c e r t a i n methods have been found to be involved. Most school d i s t r i c t s make use of a b i l i t y - t o - l e a r n t e s t s at regular i n t e r v a l s i n the school l i f e of the p u p i l s . These t e s t scores are available on the Prog-ress Record Cards, As the home room teacher receives the l e t t e r grades from each subject teacher, i t i s a simple matter to compare these with 37 sc h o l a s t i c aptitude l e t t e r grades., and t o assign a r a t i n g to work hab i t s . Another c r i t i c i s m of t h i s method of marking work habits i s based on i t s idea that a student should achieve according to i n t e l l i g e n c e . This would not account f o r low achievement i n one or two subjects often found i n students of high a b i l i t y . Students do have sp e c i a l weaknesses that t h i s method of evaluating work habits would not explain. I t would be i n t e r e s t -i n g to know how many B r i t i s h Columbia teachers give "U", meaning u n s a t i s -factory, f o r work habits simply because achievement i s below s c h o l a s t i c a b i l i t y . I t would be equally i n t e r e s t i n g to know how many "G", or super-i o r , ratings are given because achievement i s above s c h o l a s t i c a b i l i t y , when the most important reason for t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p may be superior teaching and not superior work ha b i t s . F i n a l l y , i t should be repeated that t h i s method t e l l s parents, pupils or teachers nothing about the pupil's work ha b i t s . I t i s an evasion of the t r u t h f o r a teacher to explain a "U" r a t i n g by t e l l i n g the pupil or parent that achievement i s below expected l e v e l s . I t does not explain why. This deception, often used because the t r u t h i s troublesome to l e a r n , gets the parental response i t deserves, which i s , "Why i s n ' t i t ? That's why I send him to school!" THE METHOD OF COMPARING PRESENT SUBJECT ACHIEVEMENT WITH PAST ACHIEVEMENT. The p r i n c i p a l s of 112 schools claimed they used t h i s method. This means, f o r example, that, i f the present mark i n mathematics s e r i o u s l y de-parts from the average marks i n that subject f o r the preceding years, work habits i s the cause. Teachers may be more j u s t i f i e d i n assuming the nat-ure of work habits from t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p than from the former. I f achieve-ment has abruptly worsened, i t i s a more c e r t a i n i n d i c a t i o n that something 38 i s wrong. Other factors than a change i n work habits could have been the cause. Any school using t h i s method of work habit marking w i l l often miss the r e a l reason f o r the change. I t w i l l be basing the mark on no actual knowledge of work ha b i t s . Like the former method, i t does not t e l l why or how achievement has a l t e r e d . I t s usefulness ends when i t has ale r t e d the teacher to search f o r the r e a l reason f o r the change. This method i s s l i g h t l y more involved than the former. Instead of comparing present achievement with a sometimes uncertain s c h o l a s t i c a b i l -i t y r a ting, i t i s comparing two more c e r t a i n measurements, while t h i s may make the r e l a t i o n s h i p more informative, i t cannot be interpreted as a more accurate i n d i c a t i o n of work habits. The use of t h i s method would mean that marks f o r each subject f o r several years v/ould have to be averaged. These are available from the Progress Record Cards, provided the student has been i n the province for these years. I f not, they would have to be obtained from other provinces. The averaging of these marks i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the home-room teach-er or the administration. I t does involve time that does not seem to be p r o f i t a b l y used when no work habits are a c t u a l l y reported. Yet, f o r t y -nine percent of the reporting schools claimed they use i t . THE METHOD OF COMPARING PRESENT SUBJECT ACHIEVEMENT WITH SUBJECT ABILITY AS SHOWN BY STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TESTS„ ' ' Eighty-eight, or f o r t y percent of the p r i n c i p a l s indicated t h e i r schools used t h i s method. They evaluated work habits by comparing pre-sent subject achievement with tested subject a b i l i t y as shown by stand-ardized achievement t e s t s . 39 This method theorizes that actual subject achievement should be close to that shown by standardized t e s t s . I t i s l i m i t e d to those subjects i n which the school has standardized subject t e s t s . An i n t e r e s t i n g reference to t h i s method i s found i n , 1 "A Theory of Work Habits of Industriousness". In t h i s study the mathematical achievement scores minus mathematical a p t i -tude equals the pupil's "index of industriousness". The assumption i s , that i f actual achievement exceeds tested a b i l i t y , the p u p i l i s i n d u s t r i -ous and has work habits because he achieves above a b i l i t y . The opposite r e l a t i o n s h i p gives the "index of indolence". Good work habits are consid-ered to have accounted for t h i s industriousness and poor work habits f o r indolence. This method has l i m i t e d a p p l i c a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia because there are, as yet, few standardized achievement te s t s with s u f f i c i e n t cur-rictilum v a l i d i t y from which t o determine subject aptitude. At the present time the elementary schools are better supplied with these t e s t s . This method, as well as the second, can be very e f f e c t i v e counsell-i n g devices when used to stimulate an improvement i n work habits. They can be used to i n d i c a t e to a student the need f o r improvement. When the counsellor can prove to a student that his previous achievement or a p t i -tude i n a subject i s above his present achievement, the student can be s u f f i c i e n t l y stimulated to suggest a reason f o r t h i s condition. This reason i s frequently a confession that no e f f o r t i s being made i n the sub-j e c t . The student has been prompted to make the required clmnges i n h a b i t s . 1. Krathwohl, William C. "A Theory of Work Habits of Industrious-ness". Journal of Engineering Education, 42 1951-52, pp. 157-163. 40 These methods are equally e f f e c t i v e i n a l e r t i n g parents. Their e f f e c t -iveness i n t h i s regard may be t h e i r only importance, f o r they do not act-u a l l y give the r e q u i s i t e d i r e c t i o n f o r the changeso Some schools have gone to considerable trouble to base t h e i r work habit ratings on the number of l e t t e r grade differences found i n these r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I f achievement i s two or more l e t t e r grades below a b i l i t y , a "U", unsatisfactory, i s given. I f I t Is one or more above, an "S", the symbol for superior, i s used. I f i t i s the same as a b i l i t y an "N", mean-ing normal, i s used. When marking work habits, by any or a l l of these methods, schools are evading an accurate inspection and reporting. I t v/ould, therefore, be d i f f i c u l t to defend them as devices f o r doing what schools pretend they do. Yet 140, 107 and 88 were t h e i r frequencies* THE METHOD OF MARKING VORK HABITS BY USING A CHECK LIST OF ITEMS. , The items i n the check l i s t were enumerated i n the section dealing with d e f i n i t i o n s . Two hundred and two, or 94 percent of the p r i n c i p a l s reported t h e i r schools used t h i s method. I t was, therefore, the most pop-u l a r . Fourteen returns claimed that these items were considered but they did not check any of them. Only 25 schools did not use t h i s method. The lowest frequency of any single item was 107 and the highest was 188. I t can be i n f e r r e d that the popularity of t h i s method pertains i n a l l schools i f i t i s so i n the 227, and that most schools keep such items i n mind even though they do not a c t u a l l y use a check l i s t . Therefore, such an Itemized l i s t as appears In Table 5 might, i f i t were placed on the Report Card, be welcomed and used i n B r i t i s h Columbia Public Schools. 41 THE METHOD OF KARKING *JORK HABITS SUBJECTIVELY FROM GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PUPIL. Tills method was included i n the study i n order to f i n d how mcny schools were r e l y i n g on a casual approach to the reporting of work habits. F i f t y - f o u r reported using i t e x c l u s i v e l y . The other forty-one schools used i t i n combinations with others. This i s another i n d i c a t i o n that schools are tending to develop an objective r a t i n g scale i n s p i t e of the f a c t that such scales appear to be more trouble than subjective reporting. This was a s u r p r i s i n g r e s u l t . There were i n d i c a t i o n s i n the returns that greater uniformity i n re-porting i s possible within the schools. Some p r i n c i p a l s reported that some of t h e i r teachers used one method and come another. These schools had not adopted one method acceptable to a l l . These are some of the quotes i n d i c a t i n g t h i s condition. "V.'ork habits are estimated d i f f e r e n t l y by d i f f e r e n t teachers of the same p u p i l s " . "The above points, (4) a-1, are used i n some form or another by the teachers. However, we are a l l d i f f e r e n t and what i s considered of major importance by one may not nec e s s a r i l y be so to another". "Assessment i s not standardized. Teachers are b r i e f e d i n general and s p e c i f i c terms i n the F a l l . Hereafter, the assessments are subjective". This may indic a t e an unsatisfactory s i t u a t i o n i n some schools. The general tendency was for them to avoid subjective assessments. Only a small minority are operating without a measuring device and depending on the casual opinions of teachers. METHODS OTHER THAN THOSE SUGGESTED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE. No p r i n c i p a l reported that his school used a method d i f f e r i n g from those i n the questionnaire. This was unexpected. The f i f t e e n who f i l l e d i n t h i s section indicated that t h e i r method was a mixture of one or more of.the other methods. The breakdown of these combinations suggests that work habit reporting i s s u f f i c i e n t l y complicated when one method i s used and i s exceedingly so when they are combined. The question that i s suggested by the method returns i s whether the schools are s i m p l i f y i n g or complicating the task of reporting work habits. This i s not e a s i l y answered from the questionnaire information, f o r the schools seem to be doing both. They are s i m p l i f y i n g t h i s pursuit by seeming to favour an objective device over a l l the others. The check l i s t was reported to be used by 94 percent. But t h i s uniformity i s com-p l i c a t e d by in d i c a t i o n s that i t s seeming s i m p l i c i t y i s not so. A break-down of the combinations i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s complexity. For t y - s i x , or 20 percent of the 227 schools said they used only one of these methods. The check l i s t was used by 34 of these. Therefore, three-ouarters of those using single methods used the check l i s t . The only other single method used was number 5, the subjective, and i t was used by 12 schools. Eighty percent used more than one method. F i f t y - f o u r combined two methods and i n these combinations the check l i s t appeared i n 50. There-fore, when schools used two methods they almost always used the check l i s t as one of them. I t was combined with (5) subjective) eleven times, with ( l ) twenty-seven times, with (2) fourteen times and with (3) s i x times. The most popular combination of two was the check l i s t and the method that compared present subject achievement and past achievement. 43 This would c e r t a i n l y be the simpler of these combinations, but i t i s d i f f i c u l t to understand why a school that uses a check l i s t also used others with i t . The check l i s t would appear to give a l l the information necessary about work habits. Combinations of three methods were reported by 56 schools. The check l i s t appears i n 36 of these. One and (2) were combined with i t 30 times. This was the majority combinations when three methods were r e -ported. P r i n c i p a l s of 52 schools said they combined four methods. Forty-eight of these had the check l i s t i n them. The use of a l l f i v e methods was reported by only four schools. The f a c t that 80 percent of the schools do not use a single method suggests that, i f t h i s i s a true picture of what i s happening, the schools seem to be seeking a suitable measuring device. I t also sug-gests that the schools are s e r i o u s l y complicating and making more of t h i s reporting i n j u n c t i o n that was ever intended, because too much time would have t o be devoted to i t i n order to do what p r i n c i p a l s report i s being done. Considering the amount of time and e f f o r t required by the use of any single method, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to believe that schools would use three, four or f i v e of them. I t seems reasonable t o assume that much time and energy now spent by the schools on methods 1, 2 and 3 i s wasted, because these were shown to be methods that, at best, could only lead schools to suspect the presence or absence of work habits. They are not measuring devices, but they are being used as such. The only use-f u l purpose they could serve would be to a l e r t the teacher and stimulate 44 a search f o r the actual habits. _The schools who used one or a l l of these three and no other methods seem to be indulging i n a questionable pract-i c e . I t would seem that t h e i r time and e f f o r t s could be more profitably-employed. I f work habit reporting i s the worthy project that schools consider i t to be, then i t should be done efficiently„ Ninety-four percent of the 227 schools were reported by p r i n c i p a l s as using a check l i s t , therefore i t must be considered the most favoured. For t h i s reason, i t s adoption on a province-wide basis would not repre-sent a departure from established reporting p r a c t i c e . The f a c t that the l i t e r a t u r e showed i t to be common i n the United States might also be con-sidered to be i n i t s favour. Other features recommend i t . I f a l i s t of items, such as those i n Table 5, appeared on the report card t o be used as a work habit r a t i n g method, schools could i n d i c a t e exactly what habits a student had or had not shown. I t would also d i r e c t the attention of pupils and parents to the habits a school considers important. Each of these items i s a simple, p o s i t i v e statement. They are the habits valued by B r i t i s h Columbia schools. The use of such a l i s t , with i t s items numbered, might reduce the time that schools are now- spending on t h i s chore. I f the omission of any habits are considered to have contributed to low subject achievement, t h e i r numbers could be placed i n the work habits column beside the achievement. This would c l e a r l y show how a school accounted f o r the achievement. The previous chapter concluded that, according t o the returns,- a l i s t of work habits, such as those i n Table 5, would be acceptable t o B. C. schools. From t h i s chapter i t must be concluded that the check 45 l i s t method of reporting these habits i s , according to returns, both acceptable and 'necessary. o o . . . CHAPTER VT 46 PRO,VISION FOR WORK HABIT RATING ON THE REPORT CARDS OF B. C. Since reporting work habits i s a duty of B. C. schools, an examinat-ion of how the present report cards provide f o r t h i s reporting comes within the scope of t h i s study. I t i s undertaken t o determine whether provisions are s i m i l a r to those provided i n other cards, exactly how t h i s r e p o r t i n g i s done, and whether i t can be adequately done on these cards. I t has always been the primary function of the report card to pro-vide information about p u p i l s . Since the t h i r t i e s , there has been a growing tendency to increase the amount of t h i s information. Two reasons f o r t h i s trend deserve att e n t i o n . Dewey contended that the aims of i d e a l s of the schools were not i n accord with the requirements f o r successful l i v i n g . He believed the a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge was not as important i n l i f e as the development of personal attitudes and habits. As the Dewey philosophy became popular, educational objectives experienced the i n -evitable re-assessment. Harris reports a tendency occuring at t h i s time that may have stimulated t h i s growing concern f o r matters l e s s academic. He writes; "During the t h i r t i e s many educators f e l t that extensive use of standardized achievement te s t s and the growth of state and reg-i o n a l t e s t i n g programs were s t r e s s i n g unduly the a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge rather than i t s a p p l i c a t i o n , and were encouraging teachers t o overlook the personal and s o c i a l development". 1 K a r r i s further refers t o the nature of t h i s reporting trend. " B r i e f l y stated, the psychological and philosophical foundations of education as shown i n the educational l i t e r a t u r e seems to i n -dicate that an e f f e c t i v e program of reporting to parents must consider c h i l d development i n a l l of i t s aspects". 2 1. H a r r i s , Chester \7. "Encyclopedia of Educ. Res." McMillan, 1960, p. 785. 2. I b i d , p. 73 47 3 "The report should place major emphasis on the process by which educational products are created". "Any adequate program of reporting must be b u i l t to promote the r e a l values i n education. These values and outcomes are t o be found i n a l l aspects of the l i f e and development of the i n d i v -i d u a l — s o c i a l , physical, emotional and i n t e l l e c t u a l " . 4 "In the l i g h t of t h i s view, a program of reporting should reveal, r e f l e c t and i n t e r p r e t scholarship l a r g e l y i n terms of procedures. In t h i s , e f f e c t i v e methods of study play an important part". 5 These serve to i n d i c a t e the nature of t h i s trend and some of the reasons f o r i t . Reports that inform parents only about achievement, con-duct and attendance would seem t o have been replaced by those also con-cerned with the development of character outcomes, s o c i a l adjustment, health, attitudes, work habits, use of l e i s u r e , e t c . The Chant Report suggests that some of these should be the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the home rather than the school, and i t may influence a move i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n . However, i t i s reasonable t o suppose that work habits, because of t h e i r influence on achievement, w i l l continue to be a major educational aim and a worthy topic t o report. This study assumes they w i l l continue to be reported and w i l l consider how t h i s i s to be done. I WORK HABIT REPORTING-. The l i t e r a t u r e has many references t o studies of report cards. B r i e f l y stated, they range from cards that make no s p e c i a l provision t o those that contain elaborate provisions f o r comprehensive reporting. 3. I b i d , p. 73 4. I b i d , p. 77 5. H a r r i s , Chester W. "Encyclopedia of Educ. Res." McMillan, 1960. p. 785 48 The habit of r e p o r t i n g work habits i s increasing and t h i s has changed the form of the report card. For many years non-academic factors were reported i n a written message to parents e i t h e r i n a section f o r com-ments or on an attached sheet. As e a r l y as 1935, H i l l found i n a study that 80 percent c a r r i e d such a message. Roelfs, i n 1955, reported that few s i g n i f i c a n t changes had occurred from 1925 to 1952, except i n the area of behaviour r a t i n g s . Yet he reported that 38 percent supplemented the cards with l e t t e r s , conferences and phone c a l l s . This would i n d i c -ate that work habits, along with other non-academic t r a i t s were being reported i n a v a r i e t y of ways according to the desires of each school. However, some schools have c a r r i e d t h i s type of reporting to what might be described as an extreme. This example w i l l serve to i l l u s t r a t e how comprehensive i t can become: The following t r a i t s a.re rated at: 1 outstanding; 2 above aver-age; 3 average; 4 needs to improve; 5 u n s a t i s f a c t o r y 0 Study Habits 1 2 3 4 5 1. Good use of time made at achool. 2. Concentration on the task at ha.nd. 3. Work undertaken independently. 4. Class work kept up to date. Attitudes and Interests 1. Interest i n class v;ork. 2. Alertness and responsiveness i n c l a s s . 3. F r i e n d l i n e s s and courtesy to others. 4. E x t r a help sought when needed. 5. Reaction to new and d i f f i c u l t tasks. 6. Asks f o r added information and ideas. 7. A b i l i t y to use knowledge. 8. Interest i n ediicational future. 9. Completion of projects and assignments. 49 Adjustment and C i t i z e n s h i p 1 2 3 4 5 1. Consideration and respect for the r i g h t s of others. 2. Consideration and respect for school property. 3. Respect and understanding of school p o l i c i e s and regulations. 4. Co-operation with elected school leaders. 5. A b i l i t y to work with others. 6. Gets along with others. 7. Willingness to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Harris reports t h i s i n the Encyclopedia of Educational Research i n the section on Student Reports and Records, and a t t r i b u t e s i t to Roy C. Heischman. He also reports that the school evolving t h i s form claimed that i t received favourable comment by parents and pupils and was a l -leged to have created good public r e l a t i o n s . One would l i k e to know the reaction of the teachers to the completion of t h i s report, for i t i s obviously very time-consuming. To use such a report i n B. C. schools would mean that, i n the intermediate and secondary grades, i t would have to be a composite of reports from each subject teacher, or the form would have to be separately completed by each of these teachers. The complet-ion of t h i s form, however contrived, represents a task of considerable enormity, for i t outdoes the usual check l i s t used for reporting these factors by attempting gradations f o r each t r a i t . The check l i s t would simply t e l l parents that the school believed the pupil possessed such t r a i t s but would not attempt to rate the degree as i n the above form. This would most c e r t a i n l y be one of the forms to which Roelfs was re-f e r r i n g when he observed i n an e a r l i e r quote that "teachers and ad-ministrators are expressing concern that reporting to parents i s be-coming too complicated and l a b o r i o u s " . 50 The l i t e r a t u r e on the actual methods of reporting work habits does imply that schools vary between comments about work habits, a check l i s t and the type of reporting i l l u s t r a t e d i n the above form. A l l three of these could be a part of the actual report card or a separate form at-tached to i t . One other method of reporting should be mentioned because many schools use i t . This i s the parent-teacher conference. Morris has t h i s to say of i t as a r e s u l t of a h i s t o r i c a l study of report card changes. "The parent-teacher conference i s the most adequate and s a t i s f a c t -ory method of reporting pupil progress which has been thus f a r devised. — In the future, when a better method may have been discovered, the conference s t i l l w i l l have been a valuable step-ping stone, i f i t has been handled properly". S To examine the reporting p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the 3. G. report cards, the following sections w i l l attempt an assessment of the information that i t i s possible to give to parents i n the Primary, Intermediate and Secondary cards. 6. Morris, L u c i l e "Evaluating and Reporting P u p i l Progress". The Elementary School Journal 53, Nov. 1952. 51 I I . THE PRIMARY REPORT CARD. The section for reporting work habits on t h i s card i s under General Development. The l e t t e r s 0 (outstanding), H (normal), S (slow) and U (unsatisfactory) are to be placed on t h i s form and are to r e f e r to the items under Growth i n \7ork Habits. ' , Ts-b^e 6, Reporting Provisions on the Primary Card. F i r s t Second Third Fourth Report Report Report Report Growth i n Y/ork Habits: L i s t e n s c a r e f u l l y ; does cheer-f u l l y what he i s asked to do; does work neatly; f i n i s h e s work; finds new tasks when work i s done. T/hatever l e t t e r i s used, i t represents a single evaluation of the f i v e items considered to be good work habits at t h i s l e v e l . The parent, on reading the report, must assume that i t s c h i l d i s outstanding, normal, slow or un s a t i s f a c t o r y i n a l l the items. But t h i s cannot often be the case. Parents would be better informed i f the spe c i a l items i n which the c h i l d i s slow or unsatisfactory were mentioned. This could be done by p l a c i n g a l e t t e r symbol i n the column opposite each of the items. The f a i l u r e of t h i s report form to provide more than a general e v a r i a t -ion i s one of i t s l i m i t a t i o n s . Another l i m i t a t i o n i s that i t does not e n l i s t the co-operation of 52 the home. No parent i s l i k e l y t-o be zealous about a r a t i n g that uses a single l e t t e r to t e l l the whole important story about work hab i t s . Such vagueness i n reporting i s also unfortunately timed. I f , as some educators believe, work habits are formed i n these early grades, then greater attention should be given to t h e i r reporting and development at these grade l e v e l s . There i s a noticeable tendency t o believe that these habits must be thoroughly ingrained at the e a r l i e s t possible age. An alarming number of above-average-ability children are breaking down at the secondary l e v e l because they have f a i l e d to develop the work habits necessary f o r academic success. Our society can i l l afford to lose these people and the contribution they should make. The importance of these early years i n the development of work habits should be stressed. This can be done by making these habits as important i n these e a r l y grades as they axe considered t o be i n higher grades. Another c r i t i c i s m of the i n d e f i n i t e reporting at the primary l e v e l i s that i t does not encourage the maximum e f f o r t from every c h i l d , re-gardless of a b i l i t y , nor does i t give the impression that the schools are attempting to do t h i s . This could be corrected by in c r e a s i n g the number of items to more completely describe the necessary habits and attitudes, and by providing f o r a r a t i n g on each of them. This type of reporting would t e l l parents a great deal more. I t would be h e l p f u l because par-ents would be t o l d the exact work habit omissions at a time when they have a chance to contribute to the development of more productive h a b i t s . Reporting that encourages greater e f f o r t i s e s s e n t i a l . This Primary Report Card, then, seems to be inadequate because i t 53 does not give the information-that proper work habit reporting demands. I t gives an i n d i s t i n c t and undefined r a t i n g when i t should give a d i s -t i n c t and p a r t i c u l a r one. I t gives t h i s type of r a t i n g at a formative period of work habit development. I t tends t o create the impression by such cursory reporting that these habits are not as important at t h i s l e v e l as they are l a t e r . Not much useful information i s given by t h i s report. I t s f a i l u r e to impress parents with the importance of work habits i n these lower grades, and the trouble that t h i s may cause i n l a t e r grades, i s i t s serious defect. While i t i s true that teachers can supplement t h i s report's scanty opportunities by comments elsewhere i n the report, these comments often increase rather than lessen i t s i n -d e f i n i t e nature, f o r they are u s u a l l y concerned with remarks about achievement or behaviour. 54 I I I . THE INTERMEDIATE REPORT CARD. On t h i s card, work habits are reported i n the Scholastic Achieve-ment section, and not under General Development. I t requires each sub-j e c t to have a work habit r a t i n g . Table 7 shows the l e t t e r symbols and the part of the card where work habit ratings are entered. Table 7 Reporting Provisions of the Intermediate Report Card. Work Habit Symbols 0 the c h i l d i s working exceptionally w e l l . G the work habits are good. N the work habits are s a t i s f a c t o r y . S the work habits are s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r t h i s p u p i l . U the work habits are d e f i n i t e l y u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . F i r s t Second Third Fourth Report Report Report Report SUBJECT Language S p e l l i n g Y/riting Re ading S o c i a l Stxidies etco In s p i t e of the fac t that t h i s card provides f o r a f i v e instead of f o u r - l e t t e r scale, and that a r a t i n g Is placed on i t f o r every subject, t h i s report does not give much information to parents. An "0", "G" or "N" beside a subject on t h i s report may suggest to a parent that a l l i s well i n the realm of work hab i t s . But the parent v/ould be no wiser about 55 what the school f e e l s are good work ha b i t s . This report i s only t e l l -ing him that h i s c h i l d i s exceptional, good or s a t i s f a c t o r y , but not why lie i s so. A parent who reads a s a t i s f a c t o r y work habit r a t i n g f o r Soc-i a l Studies and an u n s a t i s f a c t o r y one i n Mathematics deserves t o know what items are not a part of his c h i l d ' s habits i n the unsatisfactory subject. But t h i s cannot be learned from t h i s report. A parent who sees a "U" for work habits learns nothing more than a low achievement mark alone can t e l l . I t i s of l i t t l e value to anyone, when a school reports these habits as u n s a t i s f a c t o r y without t e l l i n g what or why. I t i s not c o r r e c t i v e and therefore not h e l p f u l . The more information a report card can give, the more valuable i t w i l l be. IV REPORTING PROVISIONS OF THE SECONDARY REPORT CARD. On t h i s card the l e t t e r categories have been l i m i t e d to these three: G (superior); N (normal or s a t i s f a c t o r y ) and U ( u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ) . This i s the only difference between i t and the Intermediate Card. This card continues the type of reporting that sustains an i n t e r e s t i n work habits, but also makes no contribution to t h e i r improvement. The f a i l u r e of these cards to communicate anything of value about work habits was regrettable at the lower grade l e v e l s , but i t i s more so at the Secondary l e v e l . This i s not because work habits are more import-ant, but rather because t h e i r absence i s more obvious. In our school system more students f a i l at t h i s l e v e l . Parents are i n c l i n e d to be i n -terested i n knowing exactly why they f a i l . Schools who report only that work habits are u n s a t i s f a c t o r y are not carrying out t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t -i e s to parents. Even i f schools were i n c l i n e d to do more, there i s no 56 provision on the Secondary Card .for g i v i n g more information. Teachers cannot give a d e t a i l e d analysis of these habits. Schools w i l l impress parents and more e f f e c t i v e l y remind them of t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i f work habit d e f i c i e n c i e s are c l e a r l y stated on the report card. Another reason why i n t e r e s t i s greater i n the Secondary Report Card i s that i t may become a permanent document by vi r t u e of the f a c t that any one of them may be the l a s t to be issued to the p u p i l . When the pupi l seeks employment, the card or i t s contents may have to be prod-uced. Both pupils and parents tend to be more p a r t i c u l a r about what i t contains. I t would be more useful as a recommendation to place before an employer i f i t v/ere more e x p l i c i t about work habits because employ-ment often depends on them. Two arguments are often heard favouring the present method of re-porting. One claims that a l l the parents or students need to know i s that, i n the teacher's opinion, work habits are unsatisfactory»(rating) The />o6//s (can be discovered by interviews with the teacher. The other i s that the task of reporting i n d e t a i l on the report card would be too d i f f i -c u l t . Several factors l i m i t the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the parental interview and of i t s stipplementing the report card. The interview i s an oral ac-count and not a written record. Parents who should seek them seldom do, for various reasons. The reports should t e l l them more and make these interviews unnecessary. One often hears the present method of reporting vindicated by an argument that a more complete method v/ould only serve t o make an 5 already d i f f i c u l t assignment more, d i f f i c u l t . The questionnaire showed that i n most schools i t i s already a very complicated and d i f f i c u l t pro cess. Any reporting that w i l l improve the academic performance of school c h i l d r e n must be t r i e d , even i f i t does seem complicated. I f a work habit check l i s t would help, i t could e a s i l y be placed i n the sect i o n presently reserved f o r remarks without increasing the size of the report. I t should be noted that i f work habit reporting of a more i n -formative nature i s so complex as to be impossible, the Department should consider the p o s s i b i l i t y of r e l e a s i n g schools from t h i s require-ment. B r i t i s h Columbia cannot continue t o leave to chance the possib-i l i t y that i t s schools w i l l discover more s a t i s f a c t o r y methods of work habit reporting. Several references have been made to the inadequacies of the B. C. report cards regarding t h e i r work habit reporting p o s s i b i l i t i e s . I t would seem reasonable t o suppose that i f a school system considers work habits to be of s u f f i c i e n t importance as to give them a featured p o s i t -ion on i t s cards, i t should also provide f o r doing t h i s reporting more completely than these cards allow. I t seems d i f f i c u l t to j u s t i f y the reporting p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the Intermediate and Secondary cards be-cause no s p e c i f i c work habits can be noted. Schools attempt to over-come t h i s inadequacy by using a supplementary check l i s t , as was seen i n the questionnaire returns. But the most regrettable r e s u l t of t h i s inadequacy i s that i t encourages schools to match these s u p e r f i c i a l de-partmental intentions with eoually s u p e r f i c i a l l y devised evaluations. This was found to be the case i n the questionnaire returns, where 5 8 schools reported using several methods of questionable value that omit-ted any reference to actual work habits. One of these methods was the practice of evaluating work habits according to whether achievement i n a subject was above, below, or equal to tested s c h o l a s t i c a b i l i t y . Such-evidence suggests"that schools cannot be l e f t to develop t h e i r own e v a l -uating methods. I t also suggests that i t might be possible for schools to do t h i s evaluating i f they were d e f i n i t e l y directed to report part-i c u l a r habits* CHAPTER VII 59 _ THE VORK HABIT LITERATURE The work habit l i t e r a t u r e can be said to f a l l i n t o three categor-i e s . The f i r s t deals with the nature of these habits, the second with t h e i r influence on achievement and the t h i r d with t h e i r evaluation and reporting. Studies dealing with the nature of work habits were used i n order to compare them with the d e f i n i t i o n s of the p r i n c i p a l s of B. C. schools. Studies concerned with the influence of work habits on achievement did not p a r t i c u l a r l y apply t o t h i s t h e s i s . The most useful references were found to be those dealing with evaluation and reporting. But, un-l i k e the references of the f i r s t two categories, that of the t h i r d had to be found i n the l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g to reporting i n general, name-l y that which considered the evaluation of s c h o l a s t i c and non-scholas-t i c items. No studies were found that dealt s p e c i f i c a l l y with the re-porting of work habits, which i s the p a r t i c u l a r concern of t h i s study. There are many studies r e l a t i n g to the influence of work habits on academic achie\rement. In an e a r l i e r chapter, mention was made of the f a c t that these habits began to be emphasized by the schools during the 19 30's. These e a r l y studies may have stimulated t h i s i n t e r e s t . They us u a l l y reported the b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s on achievement when study s k i l l s are taught. T r e s s e l t ' s study of "How t o Study Courses" i s a good example. A f t e r a survey of such courses he concluded that, 1 "Benefits were 1. Tr e s s e l t , M. E. "The How to Study Course". J . of Psychology, 1952, 34, pp. 31-35. 6 0 generally considered to be good. r.Half a l e t t e r grade improvement was reported by some co l l e g e s " . 2 Shaw also c i t e s the b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t on students' grades. Such studies could lead educators and parents to believe that academic performance would be improved i f the mechanics of study s k i l l s were taught. Several studies suggested that the influence work habits or study s k i l l s have on academic achievement does not e n t i r e l y depend on the mastery of the s k i l l s alone. Other factors are involved. Tresselt claimed that i n d i v i d u a l motivation a c t u a l l y determined the results.. Ruth Strang reported that, 3 "Findings suggest a s h i f t i n how-to-study programs from emphasis on study techniques to conditions within the i n -d i v i d u a l and h i s environment". This indicates to teachers, pupils and parents that time and energy spent on teaching proper work habits w i l l be wasted i f the desirable attitudes are not developed and home condit-ions are not s u i t a b l e . Harold Carter reported that, 4- "For the study, items r e f l e c t i n g self-confidence and adjustment, s c h o l a r l y drive and values, and e f f e c t i v e use of time were more p r e d i c t i v e of success than those r e f l e c t i n g mechanics of study procedure". This complicates the 2. Shaw, James G. "An Evaluation of a Study S k i l l s Course". Personnel Guidance J . , 1955, 33, pp. 465-468. 3. Strang, Ruth. "An Introspective Approach t o Study Problems". J . Educ. Res., 1957, 51, pp. 271-278. 4. Carter, Harold D. "Development of a Diagnostic Scoring Scheme  fo r a Study Method Test". C a l i f . J . Educ. Res., 1955, 6, pp. 26-32. 61 r e l a t i o n s h i p . Another i n d i c a t i o n that the a c q u i s i t i o n of e f f e c t i v e study habits i s not a simple matter i s reported by William Valinda. He writes that, 5 "Emotional f e e l i n g may prevent students from studying". A reference to f r u s t r a t e planned attempts to inculcate these habits i n our children, and that indicates a major role f o r the home i n t h i s e f f o r t , i s a conclusion of Carrington da Costa's, 6 " A b i l i t y to study i s not i n h e r i t e d , but those who study do not generally t r y to acquire i t " . Another study by Ruth Strang indicates that i n s t r u c t i o n i n work s k i l l s and development of proper motivation w i l l not be successful un-l e s s c e r t a i n environmental conditions e x i s t . Basing her conclusions on the ideas students have about t h e i r study habits, she says, 7 "Among the most favourable conditions a f f e c t i n g t h e i r studying were: freedom from d i s t r a c t i o n , privacy, i n t e r e s t i n the material to be studied, e f f e c t i v e teaching, f e e l i n g rested and w e l l " . These findings eloquently t e l l a l l concerned with them that the development of -work habits requires the best e f f o r t s of the school and the home. 5. Valinda, William F. "Understanding; Your Child's Habits". Under-standing Your C h i l d , 1953, 22, pp. 79-80. 6. Carrington da Costa, Rui. "Concerning S u f f i c i e n t Study". Crianca Portugal, 1951-52, 11, pp. 141-175. 7. Strang, Ruth. "Students' Perception of Factors A f f e c t i n g Their  Studying". Mental Hygiene, M. Y., 1957, 41, pp. 97-102. CHAPTER VIII. SOilCLUSIONS 1. P r i o r to 1930, work habits were reported as part of the. acad-emic achievement evaluation, because teachers u s u a l l y considered such non-academic factors when making t h e i r academic evaluations. 2. A f t e r 1930, there was noticeable trend towards reporting work habits separately on the report cards. 3. Work habit reporting i s part of a growing practice on the part of schools towards more comprehensive reporting. 4. Some reasons f o r t h i s new reporting are: 1. A changing educational philosophy that considered the a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge to be of l e s s e r importance than the development of habits or methods of acquiring i t . 2. The idea that each c h i l d can be educated and must be educated to the l i m i t of capacity. 3. A growing i n t e r e s t i n education. 5. Some schools of B r i t i s h Columbia have been reporting work habits since 1935. 6. The present 3. C. Report Cards, which were adopted i n 1947, re-quire a l l P u b l i c Schools to report work habits, 7. The 3. C. Department of Education permits each school to evolve i t s own d e f i n i t i o n s of, i t s own l i s t of and i t s own method of evaluat-i n g work habits at the Intermediate and. Secondary l e v e l s . 8. Most of the B. C. Pub l i c Schools report work habits to parents. 9. The responding p r i n c i p a l s tended to avoid d e f i n i n g work ha b i t s . ) 63 One quarter gave no d e f i n i t i o n although they completed the rest of the questionnaireo 10. Schools would have considerable d i f f i c u l t y t r a n s l a t i n g t h e i r work habit d e f i n i t i o n s i n t o factors that could be evaluated, because many d e f i n i t i o n s completely avoided reference to actual work ha b i t s . 11. D e f i n i t i o n s v a r i e d so greatly that i t would be d i f f i c u l t to frame one acceptable to most schools. 12. The majority of p r i n c i p a l s said that, when reporting work habits, they were evaluating attitudes to, e f f o r t s ma.de or methods used i n doing school work. 13. In U. S. schools there i s an increase i n the use of items when reporting work ha b i t s . 14. The choice of items appears to depend upon the educational objectives of the schoolo 15. A uniform check l i s t of work habit items that would s a t i s f y the majority of schools would contain the twelve items i n Table 5. 16. Teachers are spending considerable time and energy of a c l e r -i c a l nature i n order t o report work habits. 17. Eighty percent of the schools reported using more than one evaluating method. This seems an unnecessary complication of t h i s task, but indicates that they are seeking a measuring device. 18. Three of the evaluating methods, used by 62, 49 and 39 per-cent of B. C. schools, do not measure actual work habits and would, therefore, seem t o be of questionable value. They could be c a l l e d an evasion of t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Uniformity seems de s i r a b l e . 64 19o P r i n c i p a l s favour the objective check l i s t method of r a t i n g work habits because 94 percent claimed t h e i r schools used i t . 20. The use of the check l i s t suggested i n Table 5 would make work habit reporting uniform and, i n many schools, l e s s onerous. 21. Studies of report cards ind i c a t e that they vary from cards that make no s p e c i a l provision to those that contain elaborate p r o v i s -ions f o r comprehensive reporting. Methods of repo r t i n g vary according t o the desires of the school. B. C. schools are l i k e those of the U. S. i n t h i s respect. 22. The P u p i l Report Cards presently used i n B. C. Pub l i c Schools encourages an i n t e r e s t i n work habits by providing f o r a r a t i n g of them, but they do not provide much information f o r parents or pupils because, without being supplemented, they l i s t no habits they wish to report. 23. The P u p i l Report Cards could, without i n c r e a s i n g i t s s i z e , r e a d i l y be amended to become an instrument f o r a more complete and u n i -form rep o r t i n g on work hab i t s . o a o o o . 65 B I B L I O G R A P H Y BIBLIOGRAPHY 56 Rugg, Harold 0. "Teachers' Marks and Marking Systems". Ed. Adm. Sup. 1: 117-142, 1915. • Herron, John S. "HOY; Teachers Rate Their P u p i l s " . Dept. E l . Sch. P r i n c i p a l , B. 8: 235-239. H a r r i s , Chester V/. "Encyclopedia of Educational Research". McMillan, 1960. Evans, Robert 0. "Practices, Trends and Issues i n Reporting to Parents on the Welfare of the C h i l d i n School". Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1938. Traxler, Arthur S. "Techniques of Guidance". Harper, 1957. Roelfs, R. M. "Trends i n Junior High School Progress Reporting". J . L. Res. 49: 241-249, 1955. H i l l , George E. "The Report Card i n Present P r a c t i c e " . Educ. Moth. 115-131, Dec. 15, 1935. Toynbee, Arnold J . "Education: The Long View". 78-79, Saturday Night, Nov. 19, I960. Vancouver School Board "Secondary Schools Report Form". Johnston, Lemeul R. "Are There Better Ways of Evaluating, Recording and Reporting P u p i l Progress i n Junior and Senior High Schools?" Sec. Sch. Principal., Vol. 34, 73-79, March, 1950. Cagle, Dan F. "HOY; May We Make the Evaluation and Reporting of Student Achievement More Meaningful?" Nat. Assoc. Sec. Sch. P r i n c i p a l s , 3 . 39, 24-27, A p r i l , 1955. Rush, G i l e s M. "Objectives or Nev; Type Examinations". Scott, 1929. Bolmeier, Edward C. "P r i n c i p l e s P e r t a i n i n g to Marking and Reporting P u p i l Progress". Sch. R. 59: 15-24, 1951. Morris, L u c i l e "Evaluating and Reporting Pupil Progress". E l . Sc. J . 53: 144-149, 1952. Krathwohl, William C. "A Theory of Work Habits of Industriousness". J . of Engineering Educ. 42: 157-163, 1951-52. 67 Tr e s s e l t , E. "The How to Study Course". J . Psychology, 34: 31-35, 1952. Shaw, James G-. "An Evaluation of a Study S k i l l s Course". Personnel Guidance J . , 33: 465-468. Strang, Ruth. "An Introspective Approach to Study Problems". J . Educ. Res. 51: 271-278, 1957. Strang, Ruth. "Students' Perception of Factors A f f e c t i n g Their Studying". Mental Hygiene, 41: 97-102, N. Y. 1957. Carrington da Costa, Rui. "Concerning S u f f i c i e n t Study". Crianca, Portugal: 11: 141-175, 1951-52. Carter, Harold D. "Development of a Diagnostic Scoring Scheme for a Study Methods Test". C a l i f . J . Educ. Res: 26-32, 1955. Valinda, William F. "Understanding Your Child's Study Habits". Under-standing Your C h i l d , 22: 79-80, 1953. TABLE VIII QUESTIONNAIRE FREQUENCIES Schools evaluating work habits Evaluating methods used. (1) Achievement and ability-to-learn (2) Achievement and. past achievement (3) Achievement and subject ability (h) Work habit marking items— a) pupil is prepared to work b) pupil begins promptly c) pupil perseveres d) pupil completes assigned tasks e) pupil completes tasks on time I) pupil works neatly g) pupil takes pride in work h) pupil works without supervision i) pupil does regular study 3) pupil seeks extra help k) pupil pays attention in class •1) pupil co-operates in class (5) Subjective estimation (6) Other methods used Definitions offered Total mailed U35 Total returned 233 69 WORK HABITS QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of t h i s questionnaire i s to determine how work habits are evaluated i n your school. In checking answers please be as accurate and complete as p o s s i b l e . You and your school are guaranteed anonymity. Yes No 1. Does your school evaluate work habits on the report card? 2. Which of the following evaluating methods are used i n your school? (1) We compare present subject achievement with mental a b i l i t y as shown by a b i l i t y - t o - l e a r n t e s t s . (2) We compare present subject achievement with past achievement i n that subject. (3) We compare present subject achievement with tested subject a b i l i t y as shown by standard ized achievement t e s t s . Yes Yes Yes • No No No (k) We consider the following items when marking work habits: a. P u p i l b. P u p i l c. P u p i l d. P u p i l e. P u p i l f . P u p i l g. P u p i l h. P u p i l i . P u p i l tasks j . P u p i l k. P u p i l 1. P u p i l comes to class prepared to work. promptly begins assigned work. perseveres i n spite of d i f f i c u l t i e s , completes assigned tasks, completes assigned tasks on time. does Yiork neatly. -. takes pride i n doing work w e l l . works without supervision. does regular study beyond assigned » seeks extra help. pays attention i n c l a s s . co-operates i n c l a s s . Yes Add any other items you use. Yes No (5) We use none of these methods because we estimate [ | j the work habits s u b j e c t i v e l y from general i ' L-.__ knowledge of the p u p i l . (6) I f none of these methods are used indicate the one or ones you use. 3. What i s your d e f i n i t i o n of work habits? A stamped, addressed envelope i s attached f o r the return of t h i s questionnaire. I thank you f o r your co-operation i n t h i s survey. 

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.831.1-0106171/manifest

Comment

Related Items