A comparison between two methods of teaching social studies at the college level
by Melvin William Roe
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF
EDUCATION
Montana State University
© Copyright by Melvin William Roe (1975)
Abstract:
The central problem of this study is to determine if there is any significant difference between students
taught by the face-to-face instrucr tional method and those taught by an individual instructional
program with reference to their achieving selected objectives applicable to a course of study dealing
with ethnic minority groups, and if there is a difference in the achievement of these students which can
be related to personality variables of the students with reference to scores derived from the
Achievement Scale of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale.
Seventy-two students enrolled in an Ethnic Studies course at Eastern Montana College in the Fall of
1974 were randomly divided into two groups with one being subjected to the traditional method and
the other the experimental method. Students in both groups were evaluated by means of a series of tests
in which the items were classified according to each of the three objective domains (cognitive,
affective, and psychomotor) as well as scores obtained by students in each of these areas. All scores
were recorded as absolute numbers and the total of all scores was used in calculating group means for
purposes of testing null hypotheses. The experimental design consisted of a 2x2x2 matrix on which
was performed an analysis of variance testing the significance of differences of two independent
variables (the control and experimental method), the significant difference between the two sets of
moderator variables (the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale),
and to test the significance of difference of various interactions. These procedures were done for all
dependent variables (achievement of cognitive, affective, and psycho motor objectives, and total scores
of all three) meaning that four AOV studies were completed.
The subsequent statistical analysis indicates that a "no difference” hypothesis for the two methods can
be rejected at . 01 confidence level with the students in the experimental group scoring considerably
higher than students in the control group. In addition, a "no difference" hypothesis for the interaction
between methods and achievement levels derived from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule can
be rejected at . 05 confidence level with students characterized as "low achievers" in the experimental
group scoring considerably higher than all other students in either group. No' evidence was found to
substantiate a rejection of a "no difference” hypothesis relative to scores derived from the Rokeach
Dogmatism Scale. .S'
A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF TEACHING
SOCIAL STUDIES AT THE COLLEGE L EV EL
by
MELVIN WILLIAM ROE
A th e sis subm itted in p a rtia l fulfillm ent
of the re q u ire m e n ts fo r th e d eg ree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
A pproved:
C hairm an, Exam ining C onim ittee
Head, M ajor D dpaftm eht
G raduateyDean
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, M ontana
May, 1975
s
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is deeply g ra te fu l to the F o rd Foundation V enture Fund fo r
a g ra n t a d m in iste re d through E a s te rn M ontana College w hich m ade th is inves tig atio n p o ssib le. In addition, sp ec ia l thanks is offered to the m em b ers of the
a u th o r's grad u ate com m ittee at M ontana State U niversity including D r. E a rl N.
Ringo, D r. John W. Kohl, D r. R ob ert J. T h ib eau lt, D r. D ouglas L. H erbs te r ,
D r. R ichard K. H orsw ill, and D r. F ra n k P. McC andless. At a tim e w hen
m any faculty m e m b e rs a re accused of exploiting, degrading, or ignoring
stu d en ts, th e se gentlem en co n sisten tly tr e a te d m e as a ju n io r colleague and
by so doing they educated fa r b e tte r than they knew. I w as a lso ex trem ely
fo rtu n ate to have had the opportunity to le a r n r e s e a r c h tech n iq u es in e s s e n ­
tia lly an ap p re n tice sh ip se ttin g und er the tu te la g e of D r. E ric S tro h m ey er of
M ontana State U niversity and D r. F re d C raw ford of E a s te rn M ontana College.
Thanks a re due, la stly , to my co lleagues a t E a s te rn Montana College
fo r encouraging m e to p u rsu e my in te re s ts in the topic of th is th e sis and fo r
contributing to a clim a te conducive to sc h o la rsh ip . Then too, th e re w as the
environm ent provided by my loving w ife who fu rnished the p ro p e r p e rsp ec tiv e .
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
C hapter
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Page
PR O LE G O M EN O N ......................
I
S tatem ent.of the P roblem
............................. .........................
Need of the S t u d y ............... ................................................................
G eneral Q uestions to be A nsw ered. . .....................................
G eneral P ro ced u res . ..........................................................................
L im itations of th e S tu d y ...................... ... ...........................................
D efinitions of T e rm s . ...................................................................... ...
Sum m ary ...................................................
2
3
5
7
11
14
16
REVIEW OF RELATED RESEA RCH ......................
20
The F a c e - to -F a c e In stru c tio n a l M ethod.........................................
The Individual In stru c tio n a l M e th o d ...........................................
The M oderator V a r i a b l e s .................................................................. ■
Sum m ary ........................................................... ■........................ ... . .
28
43
46
DESIGN OF THE STUDY.......................... ... . . . . .......................
50
S tatem ent of the H y p o th e s e s ......................
The E x p erim en tal T re a tm e n ts .......................... •........................... .
Population D e s c r ip tio n .................. ......................
C ollecting, O rganizing, and A nalysis of Data
51
55
SUMMARIZATION OF THE D A TA ........................................
67
S co res of the Independent V a r ia b le s ................................. ...
S cores of the M oderator V a r i a b l e s '................................................
S co res of the Dependent V a ria b les .....................................................
A nalysis of V ariance for D j .......................... ... .................................
A nalysis of V arian ce fo r D 2 ....................................................... . .
A nalysis of V arian ce fo r D g .......................................................
.
A nalysis of Vturiance for Dt ...................... ........................................
67
68
37
70
70
76
82
87
V
Page
V.
The t- T e s t fo r Standard D e v ia tio n s ................................................
Sum m ary . ............................................................................................
93
94
R A T IO C IN A T IO N .................................................................................
96
S tatem ent of the H ypotheses . . ........................................................
G en eral Q uestions A n s w e r e d ................................. . ...................
A nalysis and In te rp re ta tio n . ...........................................................
Conclusions and R ecom m endations . ............................................
96
99
106
108
Appendix
................................................................................................
114
B ib lio g ra p h y ............................................................................................
122
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table I
Table of
T able 2
T able of E ffects fo r
T able 3
T able of
T able 4
S co res .. .............................................................................
72
........................................................................
75
S c o r e s .............................................
T able of E ffects fo r
77
..................................... ............................ '
80
T able 5
Table of Dg S c o r e s .............................................
83
T able 6
Table of E ffects fo r D g ...................
gg
T able 7
T able of Dt S c o r e s ...............................................................................
88
T able 8
T able of E ffects fo r D^
91
....................................................................
\
11
v ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
F ig u re I
F ig u re 2
F ig u re 3
F ig u re 4
F ig u re 5
F ig u re 6
F ig u re 7
F ig u re 8
F ig u re 9
• F ig u re 10
H isto g ram fo r D ata of T able I , C ontrol Group
F re q u e n c ie s .................................................................................
73
H isto g ram fo r D ata of T able I , E x p erim en tal Group
D j F re q u e n c ie s ....................................
74
H isto g ram fo r D ata of T able 3, C ontrol Group
D2 F re q u e n c ie s ............................................ ... . ..........................
78
H isto g ra m fo r D ata of T able 3, E x p erim en tal G roup
D2 F re q u e n c ie s ...............................................
79
C om parison of Mean S co res fo r Dg M ethods/
A chievem ent E f f e c t s ..................................... ....................................
81
H isto g ra m fo r D ata of T able 5, C ontrol Group
Dg F re q u e n c ie s ......................................
84
H isto g ram fo r D ata of T able 5, E x p erim en tal G roup
Dg F re q u e n c ie s ...........................................
85
H isto g ra m fo r D ata of T able 7, C ontrol Group
Dt F re q u e n c ie s
.................................................................................
89
H isto g ram fo r D ata of T able 7, E x p erim en tal G roup
Dt F re q u e n c ie s
...........................................
90
C om parison of M ean S co res fo r Dj. M ethods/
A chievem ent E f f e c t s ..........................i ......................... ...
92
/
’
I
ABSTRACT
The c e n tra l pro b lem of th is study is to d e term in e if th e re is any
significant d ifferen ce betw een stu d en ts taught by the fa c e -to -fa c e in s tru c r
tio n al m ethod and those taught by an individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ra m w ith
re fe re n c e to th e ir achieving s e le c te d o b jectiv es applicable to a c o u rse of study
dealing w ith ethnic m in o rity g ro u p s, and if th e re is a d ifferen ce in the a ch ie v e ­
m ent of th e se students w hich can be re la te d to p e rso n ality v a ria b le s of the
students w ith re fe re n c e to s c o re s d e riv e d fro m the A chievem ent Scale of the
Edw ards P ersonal P refere n c e Schedule and the Rokeach D ogm atism Scale.
Seventy-tw o students e n ro lle d in an Ethnic Studies c o u rse at
E a s te rn M ontana College in the F a ll of 1974 w e re ran d o m ly divided into two
groups w ith one being subjected to th e tra d itio n a l m ethod and th e o th er the
e x p erim en tal m ethod. Students in both groups w e re evaluated by m eans of a
s e r ie s of te s ts in w hich the item s w e re c la s s ifie d a cco rd in g to each of the
th re e objective dom ains (cognitive, affectiv e, and psychom otor) as w ell as
s c o re s obtained by students in each of th e se a re a s . All s c o re s w e re re c o rd e d
a s absolute num bers and the to ta l of a ll s c o r e s w as used in calcu latin g group
m eans for p u rp o ses of te stin g null h y p o th eses. The ex p erim en tal design con­
siste d of a 2x2x2 m a trix on w hich w as p e rfo rm e d an a n aly sis of v a ria n c e t e s t ­
ing th e significance of d ifferen c es of tw o independent v a ria b le s (the co n tro l and
e x p erim en tal m ethod), the sig n ifican t d ifferen ce betw een the two se ts of m od­
e ra to r v a ria b le s (the Edw ards P erso n al P re fe re n c e Schedule and the Rokeach
D ogm atism Scale), and to te s t the sig n ifican ce of differen ce of v a rio u s in te r ­
a ctio n s. T hese p ro c e d u re s w e re done fo r a ll dependent v a ria b le s (achieve­
m ent of cognitive, affective, and psycho m o to r o b jectiv es, and to ta l s c o re s of
a ll th re e ) m eaning th a t fo u r AOV stu d ie s w e re com pleted.
The subsequent s ta tis tic a l a n a ly sis in d icates th a t a "no d iffe re n c e ”
hypothesis for the two m ethods can b e re je c te d at . Ol confidence le v el w ith th e
students in the e x p erim en tal group sc o rin g co n sid erab ly hig h er than students
in the control group. In addition, a "no d iffe re n c e " hypothesis for the in te r ­
action betw een m ethods and achievem en t le v e ls d eriv ed fro m the Edw ards
P ersonal P refere n c e Schedule can be re je c te d a t . 05 confidence lev el w ith s tu ­
dents c h a ra c te riz e d a s "low a c h ie v e rs " in the ex p erim en tal g ro u p sco rin g con­
sid e ra b ly h ig h e r than all o th er studen ts in e ith e r group. No' evidence w as
found to su b sta n tia te a re je c tio n of a "no d iffe re n c e ” hypothesis re la tiv e to
s c o r e s deriv ed fro m the Rokeach D ogm atism Scale.
CHAPTER I '
PROLEGOMENON
It is a lm o st c e rta in th a t any sy ste m a tic s e a rc h in sch o la rly w orks on
teaching and le arn in g in h ig h er education w ill lead the re a d e r to a num ber of
a p h o rism s re la tiv e to one m ethod of in stru c tio n being p re fe rre d over o th e rs.
,
And w hile th e se no doubt w ill v a ry fro m one d iscip lin e to an o th er a s w ell as to
the te m p e ram en t of the p ro fe s s o r a n d /o r w r ite r , th e re is u su ally the su p p o rt­
ing b elief or b e lie f-s y s te m th a t a lle g es s u p e rio rity for th e p re fe rre d method .
in question.
In fact, it m ay be a Sisyphean ta s k fo r any r e s e a r c h e r who e n te rs
into th is a re n a of stro n g affect and little co n cern in an endeavor to a s s e s s the
re la tiv e u tility of v a rio u s college teaching m ethods. - It is no s u rp ris e then
th a t such inquiry has re c e iv e d re m a rk a b ly little attention fro m e x p e rim e n ta l­
is ts .
F o r even in the acad em ic com m unity, w h e re m en 's w o rk is supposedly
b ased upon a rig o ro u s te stin g of accepted id e a s, th e re is a tendency to think it
som ew hat indecent to apply the sam e sta n d a rd s of inquiry to th e ir own teaching
p ra c tic e s .
J. P. Powell has o bserved th at "few u n iv e rsity te a c h e rs a re even
aw are th at m any of th e ir in stru c tio n a l p ro b lem s have a lre ad y b een investigated
e x p e rim e n ta lly , and only a tiny m ino rity tak e th e tro u b le to acquaint th em selv es
w ith the r e s u lts .
Any b e lie f-s y ste m , how ever hallow ed, re g a rd in g effectiv e teaching
2
m ethods, be it th e tim e -h o n o red tra d itio n a l fa c e -to -fa c e in stru c tio n or the
la tte r-d a y innovative individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ram , stan d s in need of e m ­
p iric a l su p p o rt, w ith the u ltim a te c r ite r ia fo r effectiv en ess being not only
m e asu re d w ith re fe re n c e to th e accum ulation of knowledge and the develop­
m ent of d e s ira b le a ttitu d e s, but w ith re g a rd to stu d e n t's individual p e rso n ality
d iffe re n c e s.
The purp o se of th is study is to com pare two such m ethods of
teaching a so c ia l studies c o u rse a t the college lev el.
T his p re s e n t ch ap ter
w ill enable the re a d e r to identify the c e n tra l p ro b lem under co n sid eratio n , d is ­
c e rn the need fo r the study, adjudge q uestions to be an sw ered , a p p ra ise the
r e s e a r c h p ro c e d u re s, p re c eiv e re c o g n iza b le lim itatio n s, and reco g n ize r e l e ­
vant term in o lo g y .
STATEM ENT OF THE PROBLEM
T he c e n tra l p ro b lem of th is study is to d eterm in e if th e re is any s ig ­
nificant d ifferen ce betw een students taught by th e fa c e -to -fa c e in stru c tio n a l
m ethod and th o se taught by an individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ra m w ith re fe re n c e
to th e ir achieving se le c te d objectives applicable to a c o u rse of study dealing
w ith ethnic m inority gro u p s, and if th e re is a d ifferen ce in th e achievem ent of
th e se students which can be re la te d to p e rso n a lity v a ria b le s of the students
w ith re fe re n c e to s c o re s d eriv ed fro m the A chievem ent S cale of th e Edw ards
3
P ersonal P refere n c e Schedule and the Rokeach D ogm atism Scale.
NEED OF THE STUDY
In 1968, two r e s e a r c h e r s a t th e C enter for the Advanced Study of
E ducational A d m in istratio n a t the U n iv ersity of O regon published a m onograph.
The T each in g -L earn in g Paradox, in w hich, a fte r exam ining som e "forty y e a rs
of r e s e a r c h " on the v a rio u s m ethods of college teaching, they concluded "we
a re able to s ta te d e cisiv e ly th a t no p a rtic u la r m ethod of college in stru c tio n is
m e asu ra b ly to b'e p re fe rre d ov er an o th er, w hen evaluated by student exam ination p e rfo rm a n c e s. "
2
Think w hat th is m ean s to all those te a c h e rs in the
w o rld who r e c ite fro m yellow ed notes and n ev er co n sid er any o th e r technique.
Think w hat th is m eans to the p ro fe s s o r who n e g lects his teach in g for re s e a rc h .
Think w hat th is m eans to th e a d m in is tra to r who is concerned w ith the c o stbenefit a n aly sis of college w ork.
To som e it m eans a c le a r conscience at la s t.
But to o th e rs , the "no d iffe re n c e ” conclusion provides a launching pad fo r new
d ire c tio n s in r e s e a r c h on college teaching m ethods as w ell as to m ake c le a r
the grounds for educational policy d ecisio n s re g a rd in g college teaching
m ethods.
The au th o rs said th a t the fa c ts "d em o n strate c le a rly and unequivocally th a t th e re is no d ifferen ce. "
3
Thus, fo rty y e a rs of r e s e a r c h have
4
a p p aren tly proved th a t s u b je c t-m a tte r content can be taught by any teaching
technique.
If th is is tru e then the choice of a goal fo r an educational sy ste m
becom es c ritic a l.
m a tte r.
If the content is the goal, then how you te ac h does not
But to m any, the p rim a ry goal of h ig h er education is to develop the
stu d e n t's m otivation and ab ility to continue to le a r n throughout h is life.
Few
of us a re s a tisfie d w ith achievem ent of knowledge if the student is unable to u se
it in solving p roblem s w h e re the knowledge is re le v a n t, o r if the student fails
to r e la te th e knowledge to re le v a n t a ttitu d e s.
The c u rre n t g en eratio n of s tu ­
dents is w ise enough to rec o g n ize th e sh am of a content goal and som e have
re v o lte d in the face of it.
Many stu d en ts a re asking for a m eaningful education
w hich w ill p re p a re them to m ake a con trib u tio n to the solution of the re le v a n t
p ro b lem s of our so ciety .
If th e goal of our educational s y ste m is to p re p a re
them fo r th is ro le , then how you teach does m ake a d ifferen ce.
Many com petent e d u cato rs hold th a t educational goals beyond content
re q u ire c arefu lly c o n sid ered teachin g tech n iq u es.
Of c o u rse th is is not obvious
to all e d u ca to rs and a s dedicated m en attem p t to find a n sw e rs to com plex p ro b ­
le m s , they need not be s u rp ris e d by the p re se n c e of sniping c r itic s .
In 1903,
co m p arab le c r itic s d e sc rib e d the 400 y e a rs of re s e a r c h in flying, fro m Leon­
ard o da V in c i's f ir s t a ttem p ts in 1500, to the fa ilu re of th e day.
tim e fo r new d ire c tio n in r e s e a r c h ; m an w ould n ev er fly.
It w as c le a rly
Education is at a
.
5
s im ila r tu rn in g point. ' The W right b ro th e rs of the educational w o rld have
■flown new sy ste m s all ov er the country.
The reco g n itio n of the potential of
th e se p ro g ra m s w ill no doubt a c c e le ra te fu tu re innovations.
In th e not too d i s ­
ta n t fu tu re, w e can expect to find educational sy ste m s equivalent to the m o d e rn '
je t, w hile o th e rs d re a m of w alking on the moon.
The individual in stru c tio n a l technique is one of th e se re la tiv e ly new
p ro g ra m s being introduced into c o n tem p o rary education.
The p u rp o se of th is
study is to co m p arativ ely evaluate th is teach in g m ethod w ith the m o re tr a d i­
tio n al fa c e -to -fa c e in stru c tio n a l m ethod in o rd e r to a s c e rta in if th e re is a
d ifferen ce re la tiv e to the m o st fundam ental objectives of so c ia l stu d ies educatio n --th e higher level cognitive and affective g o als.
,
■
GENERAL QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
T his study atte m p ts to an sw er the question w h eth er th e re is any s ig ­
n ifican t d ifferen ce betw een students taught by th e fa c e -to -fa c e in stru c tio n a l
m ethod and those taught by an individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ra m w ith re fe re n c e
to th e ir achieving sele c ted objectives applicable to a co u rse of study dealing
w ith ethnic m inority g ro u p s, and if th e re if a d ifferen ce in the ach iev em en t of
the students which can be re la te d to p e rso n a lity v a ria b le s of the students w ith
re fe re n c e to s c o re s d e riv e d fro m the A chievem ent Scale of the Edw ards
6
P ersonal P referen ce Schedule and the R okeach D ogm atism Scale.
T hrough the u se of a sp ecially designed in te rd isc ip lin a ry , m u lti­
ethnic c o u rse w hich w as offered to a g ro u p of students (the c o n tro l group) by
the fa c e -to -fa c e in stru c tio n a l m ethod and a g ro u p of students (the ex p erim en tal
group) by an individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ra m , th is r e s e a r c h see k s an sw ers to
the following q u e stio n s :
1- How do students in the e x p erim en tal group co m p are
w ith students in a co n tro l gro u p w ith re fe re n c e to
fulfilling the tra d itio n a l o b jectiv es n o rm ally a sso c ia te d
w ith th e cognitive dom ain, i. e . , fa c ts, concepts,
g e n e ra liz a tio n s, th e o rie s , and law s?
2 - How do students in th e e x p erim en tal group co m p are
w ith students in a. co n tro l g ro u p w ith re fe re n c e to
fulfilling the tra d itio n a l o b jectiv es n o rm a lly a sso c ia te d •
w ith the affective dom ain, i. e . , attitu d es and values?
3- How do students in the ex p erim en tal group co m p are
w ith stu d en ts in a co n tro l group w ith re fe re n c e to
fulfilling th e tra d itio n a l o bjectives n o rm ally a sso c iate d
w ith the psychom otor dom ain, i. e . , sk ills of inquiry,
com m unication, re s o u rc e u se , and group in te ra ctio n ?
4 - How do students in the ex p erim en tal group co m p are
w ith students in a co n tro l gro u p w ith re fe re n c e to
fulfilling the tra d itio n a l objectives of th e so c ia l stu d ies?
Since the u ltim ate c r ite rio n on the so cia l stu d ie s is
the c h a ra c te r of the changes brought about in the
behavior of the stu d en ts, the le a rn e r then becom es
the focal point for evaluation. In a s s e s s in g w hat
th e se students a re learn in g , all of the o b jectiv es
. claim ed for the so cia l stu d ie s m ust be tak en into
account: cognitive, affectiv e, and p sychom otor..
7
5 - How do stu d en ts who exhibit a high dogm atic s c o re on
the Rokeach D ogm atism Scale co m p are w ith students
who exhibit a low dogm atic s c o re on the R okeach D ogm atism
Scale w ith re fe re n c e to the two in stru c tio n a l tre a tm e n ts?
6 - How do students who exhibit a high le v el of achievem ent
on the Edw ards P erso n al P referen ce Schedule com pare
w ith stu d en ts who exhibit a low level of achievem ent on
the E dw ards P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule w ith re fe re n c e
to the two in stru c tio n a l tre a tm e n ts?
7 - How do stu d en ts who exhibit a high dogm atic s c o re on
the R okeach D ogm atism Scale and a high level, of ach iev e­
m ent on the E dw ards P erso n al P referen ce Schedule com pare
w ith students who exhibit a low dogm atic s c o re on the
R okeach D ogm atism Scale and a high le v el of achievem ent
on the E dw ards P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule w ith re fe re n c e
to the two in stru c tio n a l tre a tm e n ts?
8- How do students who exhibit a high dogm atic s c o re on the
Rokeach D ogm atism S cale and a low level of achievem ent
on the E dw ards P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule com pare
w ith stu d en ts who exhibit a low dogm atic s c o re on the
Rokeach D ogm atism Scale and a low lev el of achievem ent
on the Edw ards P erso n al P referen ce Schedule w ith re fe re n c e
to the two in stru c tio n a l tre a tm e n ts?
GENERAL PROCEDURES
An in te rd is c ip lin a ry co u rse in ethnic stu d ies w as o ffered as p a rt of
the so cial scien ce c u rric u lu m at E a s te rn M ontana College d u rin g the fall q u a r ­
te r , 1974.
The c o u rse w as offered fo r a ll stu d en ts w ithout p re re q u is ite s o r
r e s tr ic tio n s re la tiv e to c la s sific a tio n o r c la s s s iz e .
At th e f i r s t m eeting
(Septem ber 26, 1974), a ll students w e re a d m in iste re d both th e A chievem ent
8
S cale of the Edw ards P ersonal P referen ce Schedule and the R okeach D ogm atism
S cale.
T hese te s ts w e re a d m in iste re d and g rad ed by the Counseling C enter of '
E a s te rn Montana College.
At th is tim e th e stu d en ts w e re divided into two
groups equal in s iz e 'b y a ran d o m izatio n m ethod w ith one group assig n ed as the
control g ro u p (those who w e re taught by a fa c e -to -fa c e in stru c tio n a l method)
and the other group co nstituting the e x p erim en tal group (those who w e re taught
by an individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ram ).
Beginning w ith the second w eek, the co n tro l group w as scheduled to
m eet tw ice each w eek in tw o-hour s e s sio n s u n til th e clo se of th e q u a rte r,
D ecem ber 10, 1974 (a to ta l of 40 h o u rs of c la s s ro o m in stru ctio n ).
The students
assig n ed to the e x p erim en tal group w e re provided w ith the individualized in ­
stru c tio n a l p ro g ra m co n sistin g of fo rty c a s s e tte p ro g ra m s,
g ra m s , and p ro g ram m ed w orkbooks.
five slid e p ro - .
T hese students had fre e a c c e ss to the
R eso u rce C enter of the Language D ep artm en t o r the L earn in g C enter of the
Audio V isual C enter fo r liste n in g to tap es a n d /o r view ing s lid e s , o r they could
check th e se item s out of the lib r a r y fo r u se a t th e ir p le a su re .
The c o u rse of study for both g roups w as id en tical w ith each group
p re sen te d w ith identical g o a ls, subjected to id en tical le c tu re s , provided w ith
id en tical re s o u rc e m a te ria ls and evaluated w ith identical t e s t s / The differen ce
betw een the two g roups w as not in c o u rse content but in m ethod of in stru ctio n .
9
W hereas the control group had le c tu re s p re se n te d in a tra d itio n a l fa c e -to -fa c e
m ethod, the ex p erim en tal group had a c c e s s to the sam e le c tu re s v ia au d io -tap e.
F u rth e rm o re , w h e re a s the co n tro l gro u p had am ple opportunity fo r u n s tru c ­
tu re d d isc u ssio n in each c la s s se s sio n , the e x p erim en tal gro u p w as subjected
to a s tru c tu re d p ro g ra m provided in th e w orkbooks.
Students in both groups w e re evaluated by m eans of five p ro c to red
e s s a y te s ts and five p ro c to re d objective te s ts .
A ll e ssa y te s ts w e re g raded
by a v erag in g independent ra tin g s subm itted by a panel of r a t e r s co n sistin g of
five seco n d ary education m a jo rs re c ru ite d fro m an advanced c la s s in evaluating
so c ia l scie n c e o b je ctiv es.
All s c o re s w e re re c o rd e d as ab so lu te n u m b ers and
the to tal of a ll s c o re s w e re used in c alcu latin g group m eans fo r p u rp o se s of
te stin g null h y p otheses.
F o r th e purp o se of additional study, te s t item s w e re
c la ssifie d by th is r e s e a r c h e r accord in g to each of the th re e objective dom ains
(cognitive, affectiv e, and psycho m ot or) a s w ell a s s c o re s obtained by students
in each of th e se a re a s .
The e x p erim en tal d esig n c o n sisted of a .2x2x2 m a trix on w hich was.
p e rfo rm ed an a n aly sis of v a ria n c e (AOV) te stin g the sig n ifican ce of difference
of two independent v a ria b le s (the control and ex p erim en tal m ethod), the sig n ifi­
cant d ifferen ce betw een the two s e ts of m o d e ra to r v a ria b le s (the Edw ards P e r ­
sonal P refere n c e Schedule and the R okeach D ogm atism Scale), and the
■ ^
.10
significance of d ifferen ce of v a rio u s in te ra c tio n s.
T hese p ro c e d u res w e re done
for all dependent v a ria b le s (achievem ent of cognitive, affective, and psychom otor ob jectiv es, and to tal of s c o re s of a ll th re e ) m eaning that four AOV
stu d ies w e re com pleted.
Data w as c a s t into a tab le as follow s:
11
In the ex p erim en tal d esign illu s tra te d above,
D j equals achievem en t of cognitive objectives
D2 equals achievem ent of affectiv e o bjectives
Dg equals achievem ent of psychom otor o b jectiv es
Dt equals D j plus D2 plus Dg
M j equals fa c e -to -fa c e m ethod of in stru c tio n
M2 equals individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ram
HD equals high dogm atic s c o re on the R okeach D ogm atism Scale
LD equals low dogm atic s c o re on the R okeach D ogm atism Scale
HL equals high level of ach iev em en t on the E dw ards P ersonal
P refere n c e Schedule
LL equals low level of achievem ent on th e Edw ards P ersonal .
P refere n c e Schedule
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The in s tru c to r assig n ed to the co n tro l g ro u p --th o se taught by the fa c e to -fa c e in s tru c tio n a l m eth o d --w as the sam e p e rso n re sp o n sib le fo r the develop­
m ent and im plem en tatio n of the individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ra m .
Ideally, if
one w ished to a d h ere to investigative techniques as suggested by the five fam ous
M ill's Canons, o r r u le s of e x p erim en tal re s e a r c h , he would w ithdraw to the
a tm o sp h ere of the la b o ra to ry . ^ O r, w ith re fe re n c e to a co m p arativ e study as
12
is s e t fo rth iri th is th e s is , m any d ifferen t in s tru c to rs would have been engaged
to te ac h th e co n tro l m ethod and m any different, in s tru c to rs the e x p erim en tal.
But w ith th e s e v e re lim itatio n of tim e and r e s o u r c e s , th is w as not p o ssib le.
N or w as i t p o ssib le to em ploy even one additional p e rso n to te ac h one method
w hile the r e s e a r c h e r w as engaged w ith the o th e r.
Thus, it is a ssu m e d th a t th is
r e s e a r c h e r , by v irtu e of h is tra in in g and y e a rs of ex p erien c e , is a com petent
educator and th a t he is sufficiently know ledgeable about both the. su b ject m a tte r
and v a rio u s teach in g techniques involved to c a r r y th is in v e stig atio n to its fu lle st
extent.
It is fu rth e r assu m ed th at, by v irtu e of his p e rso n a l and p ro fessio n al
in te g rity , th is r e s e a r c h e r w as able to adequately te a c h stu d en ts in both th e con­
tr o l and e x p e rim e n ta l groups w ithout b ia s e s to w ard e ith e r.
W hile student achievem ent of som e o b jectiv es can be m e a su re d by
m eans of objective ex am in atio n s, th e re a re m any w hich can only be m easu red
by m eans of s u b je c tiv e --e s s a y type ex am in atio n s.
R ealizing th e co n tro v ersy
/ su rro u n d in g th e su b ject of e s s a y grading, a num ber of step s w e re tak en to
m itig ate th e su b jectiv ity and re d u c e the b ia se s in evaluating a n sw e rs to each
e s s a y exam ination.
T hese a re sim ply atte m p ts to b re a k up the p ro c e s s of
evaluation into a s e r ie s of m o re sp ec ific , frac tio n a ted judgm ents m ade upon a
com m on b a s e and applied to ah anonym ous p ro d u ct.
Some of th e se ste p s w e re
a s fo llo w s: (I) to decide in advance w hat fa c to rs w e re to be m e a su re d and if
13
m o re th an one d is tin c t quality w as to be a p p ra ise d , s e p a ra te evaluations would
be m ade .for each; (2) to p re p a re a m odel a n sw er in advance showing w hat
points should be covered and how many c re d its w e re to be allow ed for each;
(3) to g ra d e the p a p ers anonym ously - - th a t is w ith no u n d erstan d in g about who
■w ro te the a n sw e r; and (4) to gain g r e a te r re lia b ility by a v erag in g independent
ra tin g s su b m itted by a panel of com petent r a t e r s .
C
T he students p a rtic ip a tin g in th is r e s e a r c h p ro je c t re p re s e n te d a
sam ple of the population w hich e le c t to tak e a g e n e ra l education so c ia l stu d ies
c o u rse a s p a r t of th e ir college c u rric u lu m .
Thus it m u st be u nderstood that
the su b je c ts of th is in v estig atio n w e re lim ite d to those who opted to en ro ll in
the c o u rse in q u estion as it w as offered in the college c la s s sch ed u le.
Once
th is c la s s m a te ria liz e d , stu d en ts w e re assig n ed to e ith e r th e co n tro l or e x p e ri­
m ental g ro u p by a ran d o m izatio n m ethod.
W hile th e re a re a num ber of accep tab le in stru m e n ts fo r m easu rin g
' c e rta in p e rs o n a lity v a ria b le s , th is r e s e a r c h e r has found by e m p iric a l evidence
th a t th e A chievem ent Scale of the Edw ards P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule and
the R okeach D ogm atism Scale a re m o re su itab le fo r th is p re s e n t investigation.^
Need for ach iev em en t as a p e rso n ality a ttrib u te is co n sid ered a re la tiv e ly
independent n o rm a l p e rso n ality v a ria b le w hich r e la te s to the m an ifestatio n of
an individual to do his b e s t, to be su c c e ssfu l, to acco m p lish ta s k s re q u irin g
14
an effo rt, to be reco g n ized as an au th o rity , to acco m p lish som ething of g re a t
sig n ifican ce, to do difficu lt jobs w ell, and to be able to do things b e tte r than
o th e rs .
Such a lev el of achievem en t can be m e asu re d using the A chievem ent
Scale of th e E dw ards P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule.
T h ere a r e th re e types of
a cc ep tan ces and re je c tio n s w hich a re o rd in a rily re g a rd e d as m o re o r le s s
d is tin c t: th e acceptance and re je c tio n of id e as, of people, and.of authority.
The f i r s t is c la s s ifie d as a cognitive phenom enon, the second involves the
phenom enon of p reju d ice or in to le ra n c e , and the th ird , a u th o rita ria n is m .
Is
it not p o ssib le , how ever, th at the w ay we acc e p t o r r e je c t id e as, people, and
au thority a ll go to g eth er? P erhaps they a r e but d ifferen t fa c e ts of the sam e
thing, r e la te d to each o th e r in a o n e-to -o n e fashion w ithin th e b e lie f sy stem .
The d e g re e o f acceptance o r re je c tio n can.be m e asu re d u sin g th e Rokeach
D ogm atism Scale.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Although m o st of th e te rm s w ill be defined w ithin the body of this
p ap er, the follow ing te rm s a re defined h e re fo r sp ecial e m p h a sis:
"Significant d ifferen ce " --In o rd e r to p rev en t the re je c tio n of a tru e
null hypothesis by com m itting a Type I (or alpha) e r r o r , it w as d eterm in ed to
le t alpha equal . 05. T his m eans th at if a d ifferen ce a s la rg e o r la rg e r than the
15
one obtained could occur by chance a s often a s 5 tim e s out of 100, the null
hypothesis (no sig nificant differen ce betw een the m eans) could be re je c te d . ^
The .05 significance level h as been se le c te d fo r two re a s o n s : . 05 re p re s e n ts
a fa ir balance betw een the pro b ab ility of com m itting an alpha and b eta e r r o r ,
and the g re a te s t am ount of com parable r e s e a r c h (d iscu ssed in C hapterII) has
been b ased on an . 05 significance lev el.
" F a c e -to -fa c e in stru c tio n " - -F a c e -to -face m ethods of teaching such as
the le c tu re , group d iscu ssio n , and the tu to ria l a re ex p licit ex am p les of te a c h ­
ing technologies b ased on tra d itio n a l a ssu m p tio n s concerning th e te ach in g ­
le a rn in g linkage.
The in s tru c to r is not only assu m ed to be a sufficient condi­
tion but a lso a n e c e s s a ry condition fo r le a rn in g , and outputs fro m the teach in g le a rn in g situ atio n a re assu m ed to be a function of d ifferen tia l teach in g inputs.
O
"Individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ra m " --Id e a lly , individualized in s tru c ­
tion m eans a n a rra n g e m e n t th at m akes it p o ssib le at all tim e s fo r each student
to be engaged in le arn in g th o se things th at a re m o st a p p ro p ria te fo r h im se lf as
an individual.
It is b ased on the assu m p tio n th at a ll stu d en ts have the sam e
c a p a b ilitie s; w hile they m ay not have the sam e cap a c itie s, they a ll p o sse ss
the ability to le a rn .
T hus, the v e ry h e a r t of th e p ro g ram is student p a rtic ip a -
tion in the le arn in g p ro c e ss .
9
"Ethnic m in o rity groups " --T h e focal point of an ethnic m in o rity c o u rse
16
m ight be c h a ra c te riz e d as fo llo w s: th o se who a re subordinate segm ents of our
com plex so ciety ; those having sp ecial p h y sical or cu ltu ra l tr a its which a re
se e n as u n d e sirab le by the dom inant seg m en ts of the so ciety ; th o se having a
group s e lf-a w a re n e ss brought about by the sp ec ia l tr a its they s h a re and the
sp e c ia l d is a b ilitie s th e se t r a i t s cau se th em ; th o se w hose m em b ersh ip in the
group is tra n s m itte d by a ru le of descen t; and th o se who, w h eth er by choice
o r by n e c e ssity , tend to p ra c tic e endogam y. ^
" O b je c tiv e s"--T h e re a re at le a s t th re e c la ssific a tio n s of objectives
for so cial stu d ies in stru c tio n .
They a r e : (I) th o se a sso c ia te d w ith the cogni­
tiv e dom ain (facts, concepts, g e n e ra liz a tio n s, th e o rie s, and law s); (2) those
a sso c ia te d w ith the affective dom ain (attitudes and values); and (3) those
a sso c ia te d w ith the psychom otor dom ain (sk ills of inquiry, com m unication,
re s o u rc e u se, and group in te ra ctio n ).
11
SUMMARY
An educator who u n d ertak es to deal w ith so cial stu d ie s education, o r
any phase of th is d iscip lin e in our sch o o ls, is faced w ith an unw ieldly se t of
challenges a ris in g fro m the new ness, im p re c isio n , and com plexity of the
c u rric u lu m field.
It is no sm all ta sk to re s o lv e the d ilem m as caused by con­
flic ts in a p e rs o n 's ideologies and the p e rs is te n t sh ifts in c u rric u lu m e m p h ases.
17
Yet anyone who is anxious to m ake a d ifferen c e in the liv es of th o se fo r whom
h e is re s p o n sib le , m ust be engaged in a co n stan t s e a rc h for a lte rn a tiv e s to th e
tra d itio n a l id eas and p ra c tic e s .
While th e re a re som e who look a t the c u rre n t sta tu s of so c ia l studies
p e ss im is tic a lly , th e re a re developm ents in p ro g re s s th a t p ro m ise a b rig h te r
fu tu re for the field .
The g re a t challenge th en is fo r the continual evaluation of
the content and consequences of so cia l stu d ies m a te ria ls .
An even g re a te r
challenge, how ever, is fo r the continual evaluation of the m ethod w hereby th is
m a te ria l is tra n s m itte d to an e ag e r student com m unity.
As th e shape of the
so c ia l stu d ie s c u rric u lu m undergoes tra n sfo rm a tio n , the o p p o rtu n ities for
studying innovation and in stru c tio n a l p a tte rn s should not go unheeded.
It is
hoped th a t th e a lte rn a tiv e s p re se n te d in th is study w ill expedite o ur e n try into
w hat m ight be a m o st exciting e ra of teach in g so cial stu d ie s.
FOOTNOTES.
1.
J. P. Powell, "E x perim entatio n and T eaching in H igher Education, "
E ducational R e s e a rc h , 6. (1964), 179.
2.
R o b ert Dubin and Thom as C. T aveggia, The T e a ch in g -L earn in g Paradox
(Eugene, O regon: U niversity of O regon P re s s , 1968), 10.
3.
I b id ., 35.
4.
The fo u r m a jo r p rin c ip le s o r m ethods of p ro ced u re (to w hich a fifth may
be added by com bining the f i r s t two) as identified by Mill a r e the method
of a g re e m e n t, the m ethod of concom itant v a ria tio n s, the m ethod of
d iffe re n c e , and th e method of re s id u e s . John S tu a rt M ill, A System of
Logic (New Y ork: H a rp er and B ro th e rs, I n c ., 1873), Book III, C hapter 8.
5.
R o b e rt L. Thorndike and E lizab eth Hagen, "A dvantages and D isadvan­
ta g e s of E ssay T e s ts , " M easu rem en t and Evaluation in Psychology and
E ducation (New Y ork: John W iley and Sons, I n c ., 1961), 43-56.
6.
A. L. E dw ards, E dw ards P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule (New York:
Psychological C orporation, 1957) and M ilton Rokeach, T he Open and
C losed Mind (New Y ork: Basic Books, I n c ., 1960, 71-100. T h ere a re
1080 r e fe re n c e s to r e s e a r c h utilizing, th e Edw ards Schedule in O scar K.
, B uros, e d . , Seventh M ental M easu rem en ts Y earbook, Vol. I (Highland
P ark, N. J. : The G ryphon P re s s , 1972), 140-148. The Rokeach Dog­
m atic Scale is b ased on the p e rso n ality sc a le s w idely known as the
C alifo rn ia F Scale and the C alifornia E th n o cen trism S cale, which along
w ith evidence fo r th e ir v alid ity , ap p eared in T. W. A dorno, et. a l . ,
The A u th o rita ria n P erso n ality (New Y ork: H a rp e rs, 1950). The Rokeach
S cale h a s been te ste d extensiv ely at M ichigan State U n iv ersity , Purdue
U n iv ersity , and Ohio State U n iv ersity (see pp. 71-97 in Rokeach).
7.
S om etim es the alpha e r r o r is re p la c e d by an accep tab le le v el of proba■ b ility (called a confidence level) and is u su ally s e t a t 95% (the so -c alle d
.05 lev el) m eaning that th e re is a 95% chance that the sam p le is d i s t r i ­
buted in the sam e w ay a s the population. ■See Bruce W. Tuckm an,
Conducting Educational R ese a rc h (New York: H a rco u rt B race Jovanovich,
I n c ., 1972), 205.
19
8.
F o r a m o re exhaustive study of w hat Dubin and Taveggia call "fa ce -to fa c e" in stru c tio n , consult W illiam H. W eston, "Value, M ethods, and
C rite ria in T eaching, " in B ernice B. C ronkhite, e d . , A Handbook for
College T e a c h e rs (C am bridge: H a rv ard U niversity P re s s, 1950) 57-84.
9.
Two im p o rtan t w orks on th is su b ject a r e N elson B. H enry, e d . ,
Individualizing In stru c tio n (Chicago: U n iv ersity of Chicago P re s s, 1962),
and Phil C. Lange, P rogram ed In stru c tio n (Chicago: U n iv ersity of
Chicago P re s s , 1967) which co n stitu te the 61st and 66th Y earbooks of the
N ational Society for the Study of Education re sp e c tiv e ly .
10.
G eorge E. Sim pson and J. M ilton Y inger, R acial and C ultural M in o rities
(New Y ork: H arp er and B ro th ers, 1958) 349-380.
11.
. F ra n k J. E stvan, Social Studies in a Changing W orld: C u rricu lu m and
In stru c tio n (New Y ork: H a rco u rt, B race and W orld, I n c ., 1968), 236267 on cognitive o b jectiv es, 300-332 on affective o b jectiv es, and
333-368 on psychom otor, objectiv es.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH
Any student of co m p arativ e college teaching m ethods w ill re m e m b e r
th e im pact of the w o rk of Dubin and Taveggia w hich ap p eared in 1 9 6 8 .1 T h eir
contribution to the d iscip lin e took the fo rm of a re a n a ly s is of data on c o m p a ra ­
tiv e teaching m ethods throughout a four -decade perio d usin g the m ethods of
scien ce to e sta b lish the superior, u tility of one college teaching m ethod over
an o th er.
The conclusions w e re c h a ra c te riz e d by c o n cise n ess: no p a rtic u la r •
m ethod of. college in s tru c tio n w as m e asu ra b ly to be p re fe rre d o v er another
w hen evaluated by student exam ination p e rfo rm a n c e s. In addition, the au th o rs
w ent a ste p fu rth e r ,to p re d ic t th at re p lic a tio n of the 91 stu d ies exam ined in
th e ir, su rv ey would not produce conclusions d ifferen t fro m th e ir s . A ccording to
the au th o rs of the m onograph, the e x p re ss o b ject of th e ir w o rk and the "no d if­
fe re n c e " conclusion w as-to provide a launching pad for new d ire c tio n s in r e ­
s e a rc h on teaching m ethods. U nfortunately, they b u ilt th e ir "pad" on a question
able foundation. As a r e s u lt, a book w hich m ight be expected to be an unbiased
scie n tific tr e a tis e , a p p e a rs to be designed to m ake a single point. . The au th o rs
saw the need for new d ire c tio n s b ecau se 40 y e a rs of r e s e a r c h have shown no
d ifferen c es among vario u s m ethods of college teaching.
L e st w e m iss the
point, they re p e a te d the statem e n t in one fo rm or another on 13 of the 53 pages
21
in the m onograph.
To prom ote th e ir c a se , th e se two m en have e ith e r c a re le s s ly or
c arefu lly failed to include a c ritic a l point in th e ir re p e titio n of the statem en t.
They did m ake the point in th e m onograph, a t le a s t once n e ar the beginning and
once n e a r the end, but only the m ost c a re fu l r e a d e r w ill r e a liz e th a t som ething
im p o rtan t h a s been om itted fro m a lm o st all the oth er sta te m e n ts.
What is
m issing? The fa c t th a t d ifferen t teach in g m ethods do not affect th e stu d en ts'
ability to le a rn and re g u rg ita te content, s u b je c t-m a tte r, or knowledge.
The
au th o rs did s ta te th is point w hen they d e sc rib e d the exam inations used to judge
the effectiveness of v a rio u s teaching m ethods.
T h ese exam inations w e re
"typically c o n ten t-o rie n te d " and designed to "d eterm in e how m uch of the con­
te n t p re se n te d by the te a c h e r can be re c a lle d , a fte r som e d elay , during the
final exam ination by the student. "
2
Although th e w ords "final ex am in atio n ”
w e re frequently included in the no d ifferen ce statem en t, the c ritic a l w ords
" re c a lle d content" w e re not, and the a u th o rs failed to m ention th a t it w as only
w hen re c a lle d content le arn in g w as th e m e asu re m e n t th a t no d ifferen ce
o c c u rre d .
Wlien the e n tire m onograph is stu d ied , it is not easy to see how the
au th o rs could so e a sily overlook the w ord "content".
a s "th e" objective of a college education.
In fa c t, they saw content
To say th a t content le a rn in g is not
22
re le v a n t to the re a so n s why students a r e in college, they p osited, "is sim ply
to fly in the face of re a lity . Students a re in in stitu tio n s of h ig h er education to
le a r n content. ”
Q
Once you have m ade th is d ecisio n , the sta te m e n t th a t d iffe r­
ent teaching m ethods do not m ake a d ifferen ce follows lo g ically .
i.
te x t, the statem e n t is not new at all, many o th e rs have said it.
In th is conH ow ever, not
m any enunciated th e ir conclusions w ith quite the d e term in atio n and vigor used
by th e se a u th o rs, nor did they om it th e key w o rd "content" w hen they said it.
The au th o rs m ade it quite c le a r th at, as fa r as they w e re concerned,
content w as th e only r e a l goal of a college education.
It would be unfortunate if, b ecau se su b jec t m a tte r o rien ted exam inations p roved no d ifferen ces among
teaching m ethods, we would then conclude th a t
s u b je c t-o rie n te d exam inations do not m e a su re
usefu l, im p o rtan t, o r re le v a n t fe a tu re s of the
im p act of h ig h er education upon stu d en ts. It w orks
the o th er w ay around: th e content re te n tio n among
students is the sam e re g a r d le s s of the m ethods by
w hich they a r e taught. This ,content re te n tio n is
im p o rtan t as a w ay of stay in g on top of the knowledge
e x p lo sio n .^
Since knowledge is now doubling e v ery ten y e a r s , it is c le a r th at we m ust find
w ays to stay on top.
A pparently, the au th o rs would have us c re a te m ethods to
double the r a te of tra n s m is s io n , double the re te n tio n , or double th e length of
education.
The odds of any one of th e se changes o c c u rrin g is slig h t, to say
the le a s t, so the r a c e is a lre ad y lo st.
The a u th o rs ' view point a lso ignored th e
23
fa c t th a t a student who le a rn s how to think and how to s e a rc h fo r the in fo rm a ­
tio n he needs can alw ays g e t the content th a t is re le v a n t to h is w ork.
The a u th o rs ' la ck of co n cern for ed ucational goals o th e r than content
w e re c le a rly s e t fo rth .
They liste d p re p a ra tio n for a vocation as the f ir s t goal
of public education. And they pointed out th a t "content le arn in g in su b ject m a t­
t e r c o u rse s c le a rly c o n trib u te s to th e f ir s t goal.
The second goal they lis te d
w as th at of a re sp o n sib le , c o n stru ctiv e educated citiz en .
They noted that if the
second goal "w ere to achieve g r e a te r em p h asis than it does at p re s e n t, a w hole
new s e t of a c tiv itie s m ay be brought into the college en v iro n m en t".
Such
a c tiv itie s as m odification o r developm ent of em otional life and e x p re ssiv e
b eh av io r, o r self-c o n sc io u s beh av io r, would tak e on new e m p h asis.
T hese a r e
not goals of the p re s e n t s y ste m as fa r as the au th o rs w e re co ncerned b ecau se
they stated th a t few a d m in is tra to rs o r faculty " a re tra in e d o r knowledgeable
about providing th e se kinds of educational e x p e rie n c e s. "
7
Not only did the a u th o rs d eg rad e th e goal of an educated c itiz en , they
lum ped thinking w ith it.
In a com m ent on th e concept th a t h ig h e r education
should teach people to think they stated -th at "although no one w ould contend th a t
thinking is a lo w -o rd e r outcom e of education, thinking needs content and the
sk ills of thought m ust be applied to su b ject m a tte r. "
w ith the idea th at thinking needs content.
O
No one would argue
H ow ever, much of th e content taught
11 tl
. 24
under a philosophy lik e th a t e x p re sse d e a r lie r is irre le v a n t to anything the
student m ay la te r think about.
y e ars.
H alf of th is content w ill be o b so lete w ithin te n
And m ost of it is m em o rized u n til th e exam ination need fo r it has
p a sse d , and then forgotten.
The question the au th o rs failed to face w as when,
w h ere and how the sk ills of thought a re taught.
Content is to ta lly u s e le s s in
the hands of som eone who does not know how to u se it to solve m eaningful
p ro b le m s.
The a u th o rs of th is m onograph w e re so busy co n cen tratin g on the one
point they w anted to m ake th a t they m isse d the im p licatio n of th e ir own conclu­
sion. If content is the objective, and it can be le a rn e d by any teach in g m ethod,
then th e re is no need for a sy ste m of h ig h er education as it now e x is ts . In fact,
the students w ill be ju s t as w ell off to study on th e ir own at hom e. The au th o rs
sa id a s m uch th e m se lv e s. " F a c e -to -fa c e w ith th e ir in s tru c to rs , o r independent
of them , college students can p ass th e ir c o u rse exam inations w ith equal fa cility
9
and lev el of p e rfo rm an c e. ” Since th e a u th o rs w e re quite con cern ed w ith the
c o st-b en e fit a n aly sis of college w o rk , th e ir own statem en t su g g ests the obvious
- -leave th e students hom e and tu rn u n iv e rs itie s into co rresp o n d en ce schools.
But they m isse d th is im plication. T h eir re s p o n se to low er c o sts w as to use g r a d ­
u ate teaching a s s is ta n ts and in c re a s e the siz e of alread y la rg e le c tu re c la s s e s .
The p e cu liar d eterm in a tio n of the au th o rs to d is c r e d it v a rio u s teaching
25
m ethods caused them to m iss an o th er im p licatio n of th e ir w o rk . C onsider the
following s ta te m e n t:
All r e s e a r c h e r s have been inclined to overlook
w hat is , p e rh a p s, the outstanding com m onality
am ong teaching m ethods co m p ared in a given
study. T his is th e textook(s) u tiliz e d .. . . It
m ay v e ry w ell be th a t the m o st p e rv a siv e co m ­
m onality am ong teach in g m ethods is the em p lo y ­
m ent of and dependence on textbooks and o th e r
re a d in g m a te ria ls . P erh ap s th e 'no d iffe re n c e '
r e s u lts of com paring teach in g m ethods can be
a ttrib u te d la rg e ly to the pow erful im p act of
textbooks w hich cannot be w ashed out by any
known m ethods of in stru c tio n .
Had the a u th o rs re p o rte d a ll the r e s e a r c h av ailab le to them , th ey would have
noted th a t teach in g m ethods not only fa il to m ake a d ifferen ce, but th a t the
stu d en ts a r e b e tte r off not going to c la s s a t a ll w hen the content exam ination is
b ased on the te x t.
The c o st-b en e fit re s u lts of a n o -c la ss s y s te m a re c ertain ly
to be p re fe rre d to low c o st, often unqualified g rad u ate stu d en ts and la rg e le c ­
tu re c la s s e s .
But th e a u th o rs m isse d th is point to o a s they co n cen trated in stead on
b e ra tin g th e ir co lleag u es. "The purpose of th is b rie f re v ie w ," th e y a ffirm , "is
not to prove how stupid, o r n arro w -m in d ed , o r ideologically com m itted have
been the r e s e a r c h e r s who have com pared college teaching m e th o d s," but to
sim ply d e m o n stra te th a t the "data a re overw helm ing in the d ire c tio n of no
d iffe re n c e s am ong v a rio u s m ethods of college instruction.""*"* What a p p ea rs to
26
be overw helm ing h e re is not the data, but a d e s ire to m ake a p o in t--re g a rd le s s
of the la c k of re a s o n applied o r the d is to rtio n by' om issio n .
In the in te re s t of objectivity, c o n tra st the w ords of the m onograph
au th o rs w ith th o se of the psychologist, W. J. M cK eachie. Indeed, the au th o rs
have detected M cK eachie's b ia s and re p o rte d it in th e ir study.
We have h e re , of c o u rse , rev iew ed many m o re
stu d ies than th o se co v ered by P ro fe sso r M cKeachie
in his a n a ly sis in the Handbook. P ro fesso r M cKeachie
m ay be quite rig h t in suggesting th a t the r a r e c a se s
w h ere d ifferen c es fav o r one m ethod of teach in g over
another provide us w ith p o ssib le clues a s to why.
It is c le a r, how ever, th at M cKeachie p re fe rs the
d isc u ssio n m ethod, b ased upon th e w o rk of r e ­
s e a r c h e r s , lik e N. R. F . M aie r, who have focused
th e ir a n aly tical atten tio n so lely on d iscu ssio n g roups
r a th e r than being grounded in co m p arativ e stu d ie s of
two o r m o re teachin g m ethods. ^
In sp ite of th is b ia s, M cKeachie had e a r lie r re p o rte d conclusions s im ila r to
th o se given in th e m onograph.
F o r exam ple, in h is invited a d d re s s b efo re the
D ivision of T eaching of the A m erican Psychological A sso ciatio n in 1967,
M cKeachie said " re s e a rc h re s u lts thus tend to slig h tly su p p o rt th e g en eral ■izatio n th a t le c tu re is m o re effective than d isc u ssio n in teaching knowledge. "
13
M cK eachie' s te x t on teachin g tech n iq u es p re s e n ts fu rth e r evidence on
th is point when he d e sc rib e d an e x p erim en t in w hich d ifferen t teach in g m ethods
w e re com pared to each o th e r and no c la ss at a ll.
The re s u lts showed th a t the
groups who did not com e to c la ss did b e st of all on the final exam ination.
The
27
catch is th at the exam ination w as b ased e n tire ly upon the te x tb o o k .^
Beyond
th is point, M cKeachie and the m onograph a u th o rs d isa g re e b e ca u se M cK eachie's
w o rk has led him to believe th a t how you teach does m ake a d ifferen ce.
The
fa c t th a t M cK eachie' s conclusion is d ia m e tric a lly opposed to th a t e x p re ssed in
the m onograph is not s u rp ris in g w hen one knows the goal M cKeachie saw for
a college education.
He stated th is goal in h is A m erican Psychological A sso c- '
iatio n a d d re ss .
The p rim a ry goal of h ig h e r education today is
to develop the stu d e n t's m otivation and ab ility
to continue to le a rn throughout his life. This
im p lies tra in in g stu d en ts to le a r n fro m one
a n o th er, fro m books, and fro m th e ir own e x p e r­
ien ce. It im p lies developing la stin g m otivation
. . . . Few of us a re s a tisfie d w ith achievem ent
of Icnowledge if it is not re m e m b e re d , if the
student is unable to u se it in solving p ro b lem s
w h e re th e knowledge is re le v a n t, o r if the
student fa ils to r e la te the knowledge to re le v a n t
a ttitu d e s. ^
The choice of a goal fo r an educational sy ste m is c ritic a l to the a rg u ­
m ent p re s e n te d h e re .
If content is th e goal, then how you te ac h does not m a tte r.
T his h as been the tra d itio n a l view point of the educational s y ste m fo r many y e a rs
and it has produced a so ciety w hich is le s s c re a tiv e and le s s adaptive than it
m u st be.
The philologist is c le a rly not the one who w ill solve the p roblem s
of pollution, overpopulation, b igotry , an d .n u clear d isa rm a m e n t.
need people who can re g u rg ita te all th e re is to know.
We do not
Instead, we need people
28
who know how to u se th e ir knowledge to th in k about and solve th e problem s
th a t face us.
The c e n tra l p ro b lem of th is r e s e a r c h p ro je c t has a lre a d y been c le a rly
sta te d : to com pare c e rta in teaching m ethods w ith re fe re n c e to achieving s p e c i­
fied goals or o b jectives and w ith re fe re n c e to c e rta in p e rso n a lity v a ria b le s of
I
th e students subjected to th e se teach in g m ethods.
This p re s e n t ch ap ter w ill
p re s e n t a review of r e s e a r c h lite r a tu r e w hich fo cu ses on a co m p arativ e a n aly ­
s is of college teaching m ethods w h ere sp e c ia l atten tio n is paid to the a tta in ­
m ent of o bjectives other than c o u rse content.
To th is end, the re a d e r w ill
find a review of stu d ies dealing w ith a co m p arativ e a n aly sis w h e re one of the
tre a tm e n ts includes the tra d itio n a l fa c e -to -fa c e in stru c tio n a l m ethod.
Second,
th e re w ill be included a review of stu d ies dealing w ith a co m p arativ e an aly sis
w h e re one of the tre a tm e n ts includes the individual in stru c tio n p ro g ram .
F inally, the r e a d e r w ill find a review of lite r a tu r e re la tiv e to the effective
u se of both th e E dw ards P ersonal P referen ce Schedule and th e Rokeach D ogm a­
tis m Scale w ith re fe re n c e to p e rso n a lity v a ria b le s .
THE F A C E -T O -FA C E INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD
C h arles E. W ales and R obert A. S tager re c e n tly concluded th e ir study
w hich exam ined the im p act a new p a tte rn of c o u rse d esign and o p eratio n m ight
29
have on a se le c te d num ber of student p e rso n a lity v a ria b le s .
Ig
The teaching
m ethod conceptualized and applied to a F re sh m a n E ngineering D esign c o u rse
a t W est V irginia U n iversity is called. Guided D esign and p la ce s p rim a ry em pha
s is on the sk illed p e rfo rm an c e of thinking and the ite ra tiv e p ro c e s s of d ecisio n
m aking.
In view of the unique n a tu re of th e Guided D esign c o u rse p attern , it
w as hypothesized th a t in co m p ariso n to a tra d itio n a l le c tu re -la b o ra to ry
g ra p h ic s c o u rse , w hich w as being re p la c e d , the Guided D esign m ethod would
(in addition to fa c ilita tin g the p e rfo rm an c e of thinking and d ecision-m aking)
b rin g about significant, d e sira b le changes in the student in c e rta in p e rso n ality
v a ria b le s .
Specifically, it w as expected that th is c o u rse p a tte rn would
acco m p lish four th in g s: (I) in c re a s e the s tu d e n t's in te rn a l o rie n ta tio n w ith
re g a rd to locus of control; (2) in c re a s e th e stu d e n t's to le ra n c e of am biguity;
(3) in c re a s e the stu d e n t's need fo r achievem ent; and (4) lo w er the stu d en t's
m an ifest anxiety.
The p re te s t-p o s t te s t control group design w as u sed w ith 65 students
en ro lle d a s fre s h m a n 'e n g in e e rs a t W est V irg in ia U niversity. . Of th e se , 43
w e re e n ro lled in two sections of a 3 c re d it hour Guided D esign c o u rse
(h e re a fte r r e f e r r e d to as the ex p erim en tal group).
Tw enty-tw o students w e re
en ro lled in one sectio n of a 3 c re d it h o u r g ra p h ic s co u rse (h e re a fte r re fe rre d
to a s the control group).
Both the e x p erim en tal and control g ro u p s w ere
30
p re te ste d fo r the four p e rso n ality v a ria b le s a t the beginning of the s e m e s te r
and. p o s t-te ste d at the end.
The re s u lts of th is ex p erim en t w e re b ased on the
calcu lated m eans and sta n d a rd deviations of th e p re te s t and post te s t s c o re s
fo r the e x p erim en tal and control groups on th e four dependent v a ria b le s .
The
a n aly sis of th e se data show th at w ithin the ex p erim en tal group, a ll four changes
w e re s ta tis tic a lly sig nificant and in the d e sire d d ire c tio n . ' W ithin the control
group, th re e of the four changes w e re sig n ifican t and in the d e sire d d irectio n ,
with, the need for achievem ent the only exception.
■Next, the p re te s t s c o re fo r each su b jec t w as su b tra c te d fro m the post
te s t s c o re to produce a gain s c o re .
analyzed using a one-w ay AOV.
The g ain s c o re s for all stu d en ts w ere then
The a n aly sis of th e se data showed
th at the
e x p erim en tal c o u rse did produce a sig n ifican t differen ce in the d e sire d d ire c tio n
fo r two v a ria b le s , the locus of control and m an ifest anxiety.
Thus, the hypo­
th e s is that in co m p ariso n to the tra d itio n a l le c tu re -la b o ra to ry m ethod, the
Guided D esign m ethod would b rin g about sig n ifican t changes in the student in
the a re a s of locus of control and m an ifest anxiety.
Although sig n ifican t gains
w e re m ade in the o th e r two v a ria b le s , no sig n ifican t d ifferen ce w as m easu red
fo r the ex p erim en tal and co n tro l gro u p s.
The cause of the two confirm ed p e rso n a lity changes can be re la te d to
the p a tte rn s used in the Guided D esign c o u rse .
In c la s s , th e stu d en ts w orked
31
in a six o r seven m an d esig n te a m to m ake ste p by step d ecisio n s in th e so lu ­
tion of a d esig n problem .
They w ere.g u id ed in th is p ro c e ss by p rin ted in ­
stru c tio n s and feedback and by the in s tru c to r.
Subject m a tte r p e rtin e n t to each
p ro je c t w as tra n s m itte d by p ro g ram m ed in s tru c tio n studied at hom e.
Each
student w as re s p o n sib le for checking h is hom ew ork p ro b lem s and self-quizzes,.
Content q u izzes and h o u r exam inations w e re given on a m a ste ry b a s is .
The
student took a lte rn a te fo rm s of a given exam until he w as able to d em o n strate
a p a ssin g ab ility .
In th is se n se , then, the student groups s e t the pace for the
c o u rse and the students th e m selv e s co n tro lled a ll a sp e c ts of the c o u rse o p e r­
ation.
They co n tro lled the c la s s ro o m p ace, th e hom ew ork p ace, and the
te s tin g pace.
Since the students co n tro lled so m uch of the env iro n m en t in this
c o u rs e , it w as not s u rp ris in g th a t they b ecam e m o re in te rn a l--th a t they saw
events as m o re p ositively under th e ir co n tro l.
T h ese sam e fa c to rs m ight a lso
be expected to re d u c e th e m an ifest anxiety of the student.
H ow ever, the fact
th a t th e se changes o c c u rre d is m o re s trik in g w hen one c o n sid e rs the s e ttin g -th is Guided D esign c o u rse w as only one of the four or five ta k en by the f r e s h ­
m en.
In th is lig h t, th e se changes ap p ear to be quite sig n ifican t.
U ntil re c e n tly , d e sp ite w id e sp rea d popularity, the teach in g te a m r e ­
m ained a concept y et to be d em o n strated a s a m eans for im proving in stru c tio n
32
in the sch o o ls.
Scott Day ton. Thom s on has p re se n te d his study w hich co m p ares
le a rn in g outcom es of students taught by tra d itio n a l m ethods w ith students
in s tru c te d by the te a m approach.
17
The hypothesis w as th a t stu d en ts w ill
achieve b e tte r w hen in stru c te d by a te a m of s e v e ra l te a c h e rs p o sse ssin g a
v a rie ty of s p e c ia ltie s and who control the n e c e s s a ry teach in g aids to fa c ilita te
flex ib le grouping, than w hen taught by individual te a c h e rs each using conven­
tio n al techniques and w orking independently.
T he e x p erim en t included two conditions: one w as of te a c h e rs team ing
to g e th e r, th e other e m u la tes th a t situ atio n w hich is o rd in a rily co n sid ered
tra d itio n a l.
The sam e te a c h e rs in s tru c te d by both m ethods.
The p rim a ry
c r ite rio n m e a s u re , a m u ltip le-ch o ic e achievem ent te s t of 46 ite m s , w as a d ­
m in is te re d upon te rm in a tio n of in s tru c tio n and tw enty days a fte r conclusion of
th e unit of study.
A seco n d ary m e a s u re , co n sistin g of 30 ite m s , w as given
unannounced a fte r four days of in stru c tio n .
fro m a com m on pool of te s t ite m s .
Both exam inations w e re selected
. .
T he c rite rio n m e a s u re w as developed in th re e sec tio n s to a s s e s s
d ifferen t ty p e s of le a rn in g : (I) fa c ts,
p rin c ip le s .
(2) asso c iatio n , and (3) ap plication of
In m e asu rin g achievem ent im m ed iately upon com pletion of the
u n it, the c o n tro l group achieved sign ifican tly b e tte r at the . OS le v el on the
co m posite s c o re , w hile in m e asu rin g le arn in g tw enty days- following the
33
te rm in a tio n of the unit the ex p erim en tal gro u p e ith e r did sig n ifican tly b e tte r
than the control group a t the . 05 level or e ls e d ifferen c es approached th is
le v el.
T hus, achievem ent le v e ls tended to fav o r sig n ifican tly the tra d itio n a lly
taught g ro u p s w hen exam ined im m ed iately upon te rm in a tio n of the unit, and
tended to favor the te a m taught c la s s e s tw enty days th e re a fte r.
A som ew hat d ifferen t e x p erim en tal m ethod has been u tiliz e d by John
T heodore F odor who w as concerned w ith a p p ra isin g the effectiv en ess of two
a p p ro ach es to h ealth in stru c tio n at th e college lev el. x
P erso n al-co m m u n ity
h ealth c la s s e s u tilizin g the le c tu re m ethod ex clu siv ely w e re com pared to
p erso n al-co m m u n ity health c la s s e s u tilizin g a v a rie ty of m ethods.
A group of
students who w e re not e n ro lled in h ealth education c la s s e s w e re used as a co n ­
tr o l group.
F o u r c r ite r ia w e re u sed in the co m p ariso n and included the follow ­
ing: (I) a p re te s t and p o s t- te s t of an objective h ealth knowledge te s t to d e te r ­
m ine w h eth er o r not th e re w as any sig n ifican t d ifferen c es betw een the students
in the c la s s e s in te rm s of h ealth knowledge gained during the s e m e s te r of
in stru c tio n ; (2) a health knowledge p ro b le m -so lv in g e ss a y te s t to d eterm in e
w h eth er or not th e re w as any sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een the students in the
c la s s e s in re g a rd to th e ir ab ility to solve p ra c tic a l health p ro b le m s a fte r
taking the c o u rs e s ; (3) anecdotal re c o rd s kept by the in s tru c to r to d eterm in e
w h eth er or not th e re w as a differen ce in in te re s t displayed by the students in
th e two c la s s e s ; and (4) student evaluations of the c o u rse to d e term in e w h eth er
o r not th e re w as any b ias displayed by the in s tru c to r teach in g the c o u rse and
to give fu rth e r in sig h ts into in te re s t disp lay ed by the stu d en ts.
The r e s u lts of th is study show that re g a rd le s s of th e m ethod em ployed
in the two c la s s e s , the stu d en ts w e re able to gain sufficient h ealth knowledge.
Students who w e re in the. e x p erim en tal gro u p developed and disp lay ed a g re a te r
in te re s t in p e rso n al and com m unity h ealth and showed g r e a te r ap p reciatio n for
and in te re s t in the c o u rse than did th e stu d en ts in th e co n tro l group.
Thus, if
the objectives of the c o u rse encom pass m o re than m e re ly in stillin g knowledge
in the m inds of stu d en ts, th e re s u lts of th is study indicate th a t th e re m ust be
the u tiliz a tio n of som ething m o re than the tra d itio n a l le c tu re m ethod in p r e ­
senting m a te ria ls .
-
Leland P eterm an B echtel, of Bates College, su b jected students
e n ro lled in a c o u rse in G en eral Psychology to c ritic a l an aly sis w hile w eighing
th e tra d itio n a l le c tu re m ethod w ith w hat he called an " in te rp e rso n a l approach"
of teaching psychology w ith re fe re n c e to student b eliefs, a ttitu d e s, values and
p e rso n al ad justm ent.
19
The g e n e ra l c h a r a c te ris tic of the e x p erim en tal method
w as in the ro le the in s tru c to r played: Bechtel re la te d h im se lf clo sely to the
student by d e m o c ra tic d isc u ssio n in the c la s s and through a s e r ie s of p riv ate
and sm all group co n feren ces.
Inform ality w as achieved even to the point of
35
conducting som e s e s sio n s in conjunction w ith din n er m eetin g s.
U sing the ”t" te s t of significan ce of d ifferen ce betw een m eans of p re
and p o s t-s c o r e s d eriv ed fro m a Content E xam ination, the Bills Index of A d ju st­
m ent and V alues, the Inventory of B eliefs, and the A llport V ernon Lindzey
Study of V alues, Bechtel re p o rte d no sig n ifican t d ifferen c es in gains betw een
the control and e x p erim en tal g ro u p s.
T his study indicated th a t th e clo se
a sso c ia tio n of the in s tru c to r w ith the student involving in te re s t in h is needs,
p ro b le m s, a sp ira tio n and v alu es did not show any conclusive s u p e rio rity over
the tra d itio n a l m ethod of teaching in the a re a of producing b e lie f, attitu d e,
value and p e rso n al a d ju stm en t ch an g es.
With the c e n tra l p ro b lem of d e term in in g the d iffe re n c e s in achievem ent,
. c ritic a l thinking, and attitu d e s of ju n io r college fresh m e n , A lvin T ru e tt Bean
conducted an in v estig atio n betw een conventional teaching m ethods and a com ­
posite of p ro c e d u re s involving la rg e le c tu re g ro u p s, s e m in a rs , and guided
independent study as ap p ro ach es to the teach in g of English com position and
A m erican h is to ry .
20
The e x p erim en tal and co n tro l groups w e re given a l t e r ­
nate fo rm s of four c r ite r ia in stru m e n ts and the data w as su b jected to m ultiple
lin e a r r e g re s s io n a n a ly se s.
Two in stru m e n ts, the W atso n -G laser C ritical
Thinking A p p raisal and the Purdue A ttitude Scale re v e ale d sig n ifican t gains
m ade by the ex p erim en tal group.
T h e re w e re no sig n ifican t d ifferen c es in
I I Ii
36
gains on the o th e r c r ite r ia m e a s u re s .
Bean concluded that w hile factual con­
te n t achievem ent is not significantly re la te d to in stru c tio n a l methodology, the
ability to think c ritic a lly m ay be in c re a s e d by th e d e lib e rate u tiliz a tio n of
in stru c tio n a l p ro c e d u re s to achieve th is goal.
Two som ew hat s im ila r stu d ie s w e re conducted at N orth Texas State
U n iversity by H illery M elton M otsinger and R o b ert Sydney T r o tte r, J r. in an
e ffo rt to com pare m ethods of teachin g A m erican h isto ry and A m erican -govern m ent re sp e c tiv e ly .
21
Both u sed the tra d itio n a l le c tu re m ethod w ith the control
group, w ith M otsinger em ploying a d ire c te d -stu d y m ethod involving the use of
sp ecial le c tu re s and T r o tte r .focusing upon the p ro b lem -m ed ia-d ialo g u e in the
e x p erim en tal g ro u p s.
All of M o tsin g e r's hypotheses w e re re je c te d in th at his
study indicated no significant d ifferen ce in e ith e r the achievem ent of factual
knowledge, im provem ent of study m eth o d s, o r im provem ent of attitu d es to w ard
the study of A m erican h isto ry betw een stu d en ts in the two g ro u p s.
While above-
a v erag e and b elo w -av erag e students overw helm ingly approved of and favored
the d ire c te d -stu d y approach, the conclusions draw n fro m the study w e re that
d ire c te d study w as no m o re effective than the tra d itio n a l ap p ro ach in the a re a s
of knowledge achievem ent, im proved study h a b its, and a ttitu d e s tow ard the
su b ject.
T r o tte r 's th ru s t w as som ew hat m o re exhaustive: Was th e re value in
V /
37
em ploying a pro b lem - o rie n te d , m u lti-m e d ia ap p ro ach to the study of A m erican
governm ent? Would the e x p erim en tal approach produce a m o re favorable
attitu d e tow ard the inclusion.of th is re q u ire d c o u rse of study? Would one
m ethod prove s u p e rio rity over the oth er in quickening the s tu d e n ts ' ability to
think c ritic a lly and re fle c tiv e ly ? And w ould one m ethod be m o re conducive to
su b ject m a tte r re te n tio n than the other?
U sing a stan d a rd th re e by two fa c to r a n aly sis of v a ria n c e in the s ta ­
tis tic a l tre a tm e n t of the d ata, th re e F -r a tio s w e re com puted fo r the teaching
m ethod fa c to r, the a b ility le v el fa c to r, and th e in te ra c tio n betw een the two fo r
each of four c rite rio n m e a s u re s .
The r e s u lt: sig n ifican t F -r a tio s w ere found
for the teaching m ethod fa c to r and the ab ility le v el fa c to r w hen the c rite rio n
m e a su re focused on attitu d e (The Hand Scale of A ttitudes Tow ard A m erican
G overnm ent as a College C ourse).
Thus it w as concluded th a t th e p ro b lem -
m edia-dialogue and le c tu re m ethods a re equally effective w hen the objective
of the c o u rse is the student ach iev an en t.
H ow ever, the e x p erim en tal method
prom oted a m o re positiv e attitude in stu d en ts th an the tra d itio n a l method.
THE INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTION METHOD
T h e re have been som e v e ry im p re s siv e r e s e a r c h p ro d u c ts re la tiv e to
the phenom enon com m only called program m ed instruction.
A little m o re than a
IL -L
38
decade ago two such su rv e y s w e re p re se n te d by W ilbur Scliram m and A. A.
L um sdaine.
22
.
Our p u rp o se h e re is to su rv ey r e s e a r c h w hich has come fo rth
sin ce th a t tim e and which h as c o m p arativ ely analyzed p ro g ram m ed in stru c tio n
w ith o th e r accep tab le m ethods of in stru c tio n a t the college le v el.
It is safe
to say th a t th e re has been no strik in g b reak th ro u g h into new le v els of u n d e r­
standing of hum an learn in g , a ttrib u ta b le to th e study o r u se of p ro g ram m ed
in stru c tio n , but p erh ap s th is is the cu rv e of p ro g re s s one m ight e x p e c t-m any s m a ll advances, re s u ltin g , over tim e , in the accu m u latio n of insights,
to the siz e of a c ritic a l m a ss.
. Such an advance w as m ade by N o rm an Hankele Sm ith who com pared
p ro g ram m e d in stru c tio n w ith the conventional c la s s ro o m m ethod of teaching an
e le m e n ta ry s ta tis tic s c o u rse a t th e U nited S tates A ir F o rc e A cadem y.
23
Sm ith attem p ted to analyze th e se two m ethods of in stru c tio n re la tiv e to th re e
specified g o a ls: (I) individual achiev em en t of content m a tte r; (2) student
in te re s t in the study of s ta tis tic s ; and (3) student attitu d es tow ard p ro g ram m ed
in stru c tio n .
The r e s u lts of th is study in d icate th at p ro g ram m ed in stru c tio n is
ju s t as effectiv e a s conventional c la s s ro o m in stru c tio n in producing o v erall
le a rn in g and le arn in g at d ifferen t le v els of ab ility .
H ow ever, th e re w as a •
s tro n g indication th at the tim e w hich stu d en ts need to le a rn a sp ecified body
of knowledge can be re d u c ed su b stan tially through the ap p licatio n of programrred
39
in stru c tio n and th a t the ex p erim en tal m ethod of in stru c tio n is m o re efficient a t
a ll le v els of ab ility .
Sm ith concluded th a t th e stu d en ts being taught by p ro ­
g ram m ed in stru c tio n did, on the w hole, re sp o n d fav o rab ly to th is m ethod of in ­
stru c tio n .
I
-
'
A s im ila r p ro je c t w as conducted by Jeanne F o s te r W ardian a t E a s te rn
I
"
W ashington State College w h e re the in v e stig ato r com pared the p ro g ra m m e d .
le a rn in g m ethod in teach in g fundam entals of m usic w ith th e m o re conventional
le c tu re - re c ita tio n m ethod.
24
, W ardian sought a n sw e rs to two b a sic q u estio n s:
I
(I) would students using th e p ro g ra m m e d in stru c tio n a l m ethod a cq u ire a s m uch
knowledge of fundam entals of m usic as a s im ila r group of stu d en ts taught in
' i
th e conventional m anner? and (2) would stu d en ts using the p ro g ram m ed in s tru c ­
tio n al m ethod re q u ire le s s tim e or m o re tim e in acq u irin g th is knowledge? In
addition th e re w as an attem p t m ade to a s c e rta in the attitude of the students in
the e x p erim en tal group.
In te rm s of p e rfo rm an c e s c o re s b ased upon a p re te s t and a p o s t-te st,
students taught in the ex p erim en tal group u sin g the p ro g ram m ed le a rn in g method
p e rfo rm ed as w ell as the students in the co n tro l group using the conventional’
m ethod.
The m ean s c o re s favored the ex p erim en tal m ethod, though not at a
s ta tis tic a lly significant le v el.
In te rm s of tim e spent in the ex p erim en tal
group and tim e spent in the control group fo r com pletion of th e ex p erim en t,
40
the stucJents in the e x p erim en tal gro u p spent a sig n ifican tly s m a lle r am ount of
tim e .
In addition, the ex p erim en tal group ra te d the p ro g ram m ed in stru ctio n al
m ethod as a significantly fav o rab le m ethod.
Donald W illiam Johnson devised a p ro g ram m ed in stru c tio n a l sequence
in th e o p eratio n of six ty p es of audiovisual equipm ent for a c o u rse in p r e ­
s e rv ic e e le m e n ta ry te a c h e r tra in in g and com p ared the p e rfo rm a n c e of students
taught by th is m ethod w ith the p e rfo rm an c e of students taught by th e conven2S
tio n al d e m o n stra tio n -p ra c tic e la b o ra to ry m ethod.
Both g ro u p s w e re taught
i
'
how to o p e ra te the m otion p ic tu re p ro je c to r, the film s trip -s lid e p ro je c to r and
the opaque p ro je c to r: one group by p ro g ram m ed se lf-in s tru c tio n , and the o th er
in the conventional d e m o n stra tio n -p ra c tic e la b o ra to ry .
The g ro u p s w e re then
tra n sp o se d ; the fo rm e r ex p erim en tal group b ecam e the co n tro l group, and
v ic e - v e r s a .
Both groups w e re taught to o p e ra te th e overhead p ro je c to r, the
tape r e c o r d e r , and the re c o r d playback.
E ach student thus re c e iv e d in s tru c ­
tio n on th re e types of equipm ent in the conventional la b o ra to ry , and in stru ctio n
on th re e ty p es in th e p ro g ram m ed s e lf-in s tru c tio n a l la b o ra to ry .
The re s u lts re p o rte d by Jo h n so n w e re as follow s: (I) an anonym ously
filled out q u estio n n aire re v e a le d th at stu d en ts p re fe rre d to le a r n equipm ent
o p eratio n by p ro g ram m ed s e lf-in s tru c tio n over the conventional m ethod; (2)
students w e re able to m anage the o p eratio n of difficult equipm ent b e tte r when
41
taught by th e p ro g ram m ed in stru c tio n a l m ethod; and (3) the e x p erim en tal s e lfin stru c tio n a l group p e rfo rm ed equipm ent o p eratio n as w ell, o r significantly
b e tte r than, students taught by the conventional method.
Providing fo r a v a rie ty of student in te re s ts and a b ilitie s found in any
c la s s has. long been a challenge for teach ers..
D espite atte m p ts to m inim ize
th e se d ifferen c es through hom ogeneous grouping and tr a c k sy ste m s , d ifferen ces
betw een students e x ist and influence le a rn in g e x p e rie n c e s.
New Y ork U niver­
sity p ro fe s s o rs Gladys C rosby and H e rb e rt I. F rem o n t re c e n tly developed a
m ethod of individualized in s tru c tio n to help m eet th is d iv e rs e need of th e ir
students and conducted r e s e a r c h com paring th e ir ex p erim en tal p ro g ram w ith
the tra d itio n a l m ethod of teach in g a college c o u rse in plane g eo m etry . ^
The m ethod of individual in s tru c tio n em ployed w as one in w hich the
student planned h is w o rk w ithin c o u rse lim ita tio n s in acco rd w ith h is in te re s ts
and a b ilitie s , d eterm in ed the r a te of w ork, a ssig n e d h is own hom ew ork, and
' d eterm in ed his te s t re a d in e s s .
In g e n e ra l, the student had the re sp o n sib ility
for his own le a rn in g under the le a d e rsh ip of the in s tru c to r.
In com paring the individual in stru c tio n w ith a tra d itio n a l approach,
an a n aly sis of v a ria n c e w as c a rrie d out to d e te rm in e w hether o r not th e re
w as a sig nificant differen ce betw een the g roups in achievem ent, attitude
tow ard s m ath em atics, and so cial accep tan ce.
The re s u lts in d icated th a t th e re
42
w e re no sig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s in any v a ria b le except in the attitu d e held by
stu d en ts.
Since th e e x p erim en t w as conducted by two in v e stig a to rs, it is s ig ­
nificant to note th a t w h e re a d ifferen ce did e x ist in attitu d e, it w as on the p a rt
of students a ssig n e d to the m o re ex p erien ced of the two in s tru c to rs .
A s im ila r study by Judson M arc V ander Wal a t W estern M ichigan
U n iv ersity in v e stig ate d two m ethods of teach in g biology usin g a tra d itio n a l
le c tu re -la b o ra to ry m ethod and an a u d io -tu to ria l approval.
27
The p rim a ry
p ro b lem w as to in v estig ate the re la tio n s h ip s betw een th e se two m ethods of .
p re se n tin g biolo g ical in fo rm atio n and s tu d e n t's attitu d e to w ard biology and th e ir
te rm in a l ach iev em en t.
A seco n d ary p ro b lem involved the c o m p ariso n of in te r ­
re la tio n s h ip s am ong a num ber of student v a ria b le s (age, sex , e t c . ) w hich
s e rv e d as c r ite r ia upon w hich a m a tc h -p a irin g technique w as b ased .
U sing the " t" te s t to d e te rm in e w hat d ifferen ces m ight ex ist, V ander
Wal found th e follow ing: th e re w as no sig n ifican t d ifferen ce in achievem ent fo r
e ith e r group; th e re w as a positiv e sig n ifican t d ifferen ce on g ain s c o re s for the
ex p erim en tal group; and th e re w as a negative sig n ifican t d ifferen ce on a ltitu ­
dinal m e a s u re s fo r th e co n tro l group.
John Tom b F ly n n 's re c e n t in v estig atio n s into the influence of p ro ­
g ram m ed m ethods of in s tru c tio n in a c o u rse in Educational Psychology for
Secondary T e a c h e rs w as som ew hat m o re exhaustive.
OO
Flynn sought to
43
exam ine individual in s tru c tio n re la tiv e to the following: ach iev em en t, gain
s c o r e s , re te n tio n fa c to rs fo r both a c h ie v e rs and under -a c h ie v e rs , and the
re la tio n sh ip s existin g betw een p e rso n a l su b ject c h a r a c te ris tic s , sex, in te lli­
gence, re a d in g ability , attitu d e tow ard the m ethod under in v estig atio n and the
p e rfo rm an c e on the c rite rio n m e a s u re s of achievem ent, g ain s c o r e s , and
re te n tio n .
A b rie f su m m a ry of. the findings is su e d fro m th is study a re a s follows
a ch ie v e rs in the ex p erim en tal group gaine'd sig n ifican tly m o re fro m p r e - t e s t .
to p o s t-te s t than a c h ie v e rs in the control group but showed no significant
d ifferen ce in p o s t-te s t p e rfo rm an c e o r re te n tio n ; under - a ch ie v e rs in the
e x p erim en tal group showed no sig nifican t d ifferen ce in any of th e c rite rio n
m e a s u re s in co m p ariso n w ith the co n tro l group; and the re la tio n s h ip betw een
re a d in g a b ility and g e n e ra l intelligen ce w as sig n ifican t fo r the a c h ie v e rs in the
e x p erim en tal group.
T hus, w hile a ch ie v e rs taught by individual in stru c tio n
gain m o re fro m p r e - te s t to p o s t-te s t, th e re is a re la tio n sh ip of im p o rtan ce
re la tiv e to g e n e ra l intellig en ce and re a d in g ab ility which co n trib u tes to p e r ­
form ance achieved by the individual in stru c tio n a l method.
THE MODERATOR VARIABLES
The p reced in g ch ap te r h as s e t fo rth one of the c r ite r ia used in this
44
r e s e a r c h p ro je c t fo r te stin g the "sig n ifican t "difference" hypothesis of the two
in stru c tio n a l m ethods as being the use of s c o re s d eriv ed fro m two s e ts of
m o d e ra to r v a ria b le s , the E dw ards P erso n al P referen ce Schedule and the
Rokeach D ogm atism S cale.
While th e E dw ards P erso n al P refere n c e provides
a m eans for te stin g in fifteen c a te g o rie s, i. e . , achievem ent, d e fe ren c e , o rd e r,
exhibition, autonom y, affiliation, in trac ep tio n , su cco ran ce, dom inance, a b a s e ­
m ent, n u rtu ra n c e , change, endurance, h e tero se x u a lity , and a g g re ssio n , this
study has been b ased so lely on s c o re s d e riv e d fro m the f ir s t - the A chievem ent
Scale.
A ccording to M ichael G. M cKee, w hile the r e s e a r c h data provides
"insufficient ju stific a tio n fo r saying th a t the s c a le s of the EPPS m e asu re the
c o n stru c ts they intend t o . . . . som e s c a le s (p a rtic u la rly the A chievem ent Scale)
s till have p ro m ise . "
29
When A. L. E dw ards f i r s t published the P erso n al P re fe re n c e Sched­
ule in 1954, he sought to d e m o n stra te th a t th e re w as a high p o sitiv e c o r r e la ­
tio n betw een s tu d e n ts ’ e n d o rsem en t of ty p ical p e rso n ality inv en to ry item s and
th e ra te d so cial d e s ira b ility of the ite m s.
Since th a t d ate, the Edw ards P e r­
so n al P referen ce Schedule h as s e rv e d a s a u sefu l c a ta ly st for r e s e a r c h and p s y ­
c h o m etric debate over the ro le of so cia l d e s ira b ility re s p o n se s e t and the effect
of ip sativ e scalin g .
30
The content of E d w ard s' Schedule, as evidenced by the
sc a le n am es, re p re s e n ts an im p o rtan t c ro s s -s e c tio n of n o rm a l in te rp e rs o n a l
45
dynam ics. A. B. H eilburn, J r. has re p o rte d th at "scale r e lia b ilitie s a re s a ti s ­
fa c to ry , n o rm s a re b ased on stab le sa m p le s, and in te r sc a le c o rre la tio n s a re
re a so n a b ly low, " Gauging by the long bibliography of stu d ies in w hich it has
been em ployed, the Edw ards P erson al P refere n c e Schedule has proved to be a
m o st a ttra c tiv e r e s e a r c h in stru m e n t, e sp e c ially fo r counseling p u rp o ses w here
it p ro v id e s quick and convenient m e a su re s of a num ber of re la tiv e ly independent
n o rm al p e rso n a lity v a ria b le s .
32
The p rim a ry purp o se of the R okeach D ogm atism Scale is to m e asu re
individual d ifferen ces in openness o r clo sed n ess of b e lie f sy ste m s o r g en eral
a u th o rita ria n is m and g e n e ra l in to le ra n c e.
Such a m e asu re m e n t seek s to define
the extent to which a p e rs o n 's sy ste m .is open o r closed; nam ely, "the extent
to w hich the p e rso n can re c e iv e , evaluate, and a c t on re le v a n t inform ation
re c e iv e d fro m the outside on its own in trin s ic m e rits , unencuihbered by
irre le v a n t fa c to rs in the situ atio n a ris in g fro m w ithin the p e rso n o r fro m the
OO
outside. "
The p ro c e d u re used by Rokeach in co n stru ctin g th e D ogm atism
Scale w as e ss e n tia lly deductive in w hich v a rio u s definitions o r c h a ra c te ris tic s
of open and closed sy ste m s w e re sc ru tin iz e d and statem e n ts designed to tap
th e se c h a r a c te ris tic s w e re co n stru cte d .
Much of R okeach's s c a le is based on
suggestions found in the w o rk of E. M. B erger, E. Hoffer, and the M innesota
M ultiphasic P ersonality Inventory. ^
46
SUMMARY
A su rv ey of the lite ra tu re rev iew ed in th is ch ap te r in d ic a tes th a t
s u b je c t-m a tte r content can be taught (to p ro p e rly m otivated stu d en ts) by any
teach in g technique, including individual in stru c tio n .
At the sam e tim e we find
th a t educational goals beyond content re q u ire carefu lly co n sid e re d teaching
m ethods.
The purpose of th is r e s e a r c h p r o je c t w as c le a rly in line w ith the
findings re v e a le d in the lite r a tu r e su rv ey ed in th is c h a p te r--to carefu lly con­
s id e r two teaching m ethods w ith re fe re n c e to sp ecified goals o th er than the
m e re a cq u isitio n of knowledge.
I
FOOTNOTES
'
1
1.
R o b ert Dubin and Tliom as C. T aveggia, The T each in g -L earn in g Paradox
(Eugene, O regon: U niversity of O regon P re s s, 1968).
2.
Ib id ., 3.
3.
Ibid. ,■ 46-47.
4.
Ib id ., 47-48.
5.
Ib id ., 51.
6.
Ibid.
7.
Ibid.
8.
Ib id ., 47.
9.
Ib id ., 33.
10.
I b id ., 47.
11.
I b id ., 23.
12.
I b id ., 22.
13.
W. J. M cKeachie, "Psychology at Age 75:' The Psychology T each er Comes
Into H is Own, " A d d ress p re se n te d b e fo re the D ivision on T eaching of
Psychology at the A m erican Psychological A ssociation, Septem ber 2,
1967.
14.
W. J. M cK eachie, T eaching Tips (W ashington: D. C. H eath and Company,
1969), 45.
15.
M cK eachie, A ddress a t APA, 1967.
■
■
16. 1 C h arles E. W ales and R obert A. S ta g e r, "The Effect of a Guided Design
C ourse P a tte rn on Student P erso n ality V a ria b les, " p re p a re d fo r the Exxon
Education Foundation Im pact P ro g ram (m im eographed,n. d . ).
48
17.
Scott D ayton Thom son, "An A nalysis of A chievem ent O u tco m es: Team
T eaching and T rad itio n al C la ss e s " (unpublished d is se rta tio n , Stanford
U n iv ersity , 1963).
18.
John T heodore F o d o r, "A C om parative Study of Two A pproaches to H ealth
In s tru c tio n a t th e C ollege L evel" (unpublished d is se rta tio n , U niversity of
C alifo rn ia, Los A ngeles, 1963).
19.
L eland P eterm an B echtel, "C om parative E ffects of D ifferen tiated T eaching
M ethods on C ertain P erso n ality C h a ra c te ris tic s of College Students: The
E ffect of the T ra d itio n a l A pproach to T eaching Psychology a s Com pared to
an In te rp e rs o n a l A pproach to T eaching Psychology upon B eliefs, A ttitudes,
V alues and A djustm ents of College Students in a c o u rse in g e n e ra l Psy­
chology" (unpublished d is s e rta tio n , New Y ork U n iv ersity , 1963).
20.
A lvin T ru e tt Bean, "Some C om parisons Between Conventional College
T eaching M ethods and a com posite of P ro ced u res Involving L arg e L ectu re
■ G roups, S e m in a rs, and Reduced C lass T im e" (unpublished d is se rta tio n .
N orth T ex as State U niversity, 1969).
21.
H ille ry M elton M otsinger, "A C om parison of Two M ethods of Teaching
A m e ric a n H isto ry at the College L ev el" (unpublished d is s e rta tio n . N orth
T exas S tate U n iv ersity , 1969), and R o b ert Sydney T r o tte r, J r . , "A Study
of Student A chievem ent and A ttitude U tilizing Two M ethods of Teaching
the A m e ric an G overnm ent C ourse in a M etropolitan Junior C ollege"
(unpublished d is s e rta tio n , 1969).
22.
W ilbur S ch ram m , P rogram m ed In stru c tio n - - Today and T om orrow (New
Y ork: The Fund fo r the A dvancem ent of Education, 1962), and A. A.
L um sdaine, e d ., Student R esponse in Program m ed In stru c tio n (W ashington: N ational A cadem y of S cience s - - N ational R ese arch Council, 1961).
23.
24.
N orm an H ankele Sm ith, "The T eaching of E lem en tary S ta tis tic s by the
C onventional C la ssro o m Method, of In stru c tio n V ersu s the Method of
P ro g ram m ed In stru c tio n " (unpublished d is se rta tio n . U n iv ersity of
' C olorado, 1963).
Jeanne F o s te r W ardian, "An E x p erim en t C oncerning the E ffectiveness of
' P rogram m ed L earning fo r Use in T eaching the Fundam entals of M usic"
(unpublished d is s e rta tio n , W ashington State U niversity, 1963).
49
25.
Donald W illiam Johnson, "A Study of the C om parative E ffectiv en ess of
Program m ed S e lf-In stru c tio n V ersu s the D em o n stratio n -L a b o ra to ry
Method in T eaching the O peration of Six Types of A udiovisual Equipm ent"
(unpublished d is se rta tio n . U niv ersity of C olorado, 1964).
26.
H e rb e rt J. F rem o n t, "Individualized In stru c tio n in Plane G eom etry: A
C om parison of the R elative E ffectiv en ess of L earning Plane G eom etry by
an Individualized A pproach as C o n trasted w ith th e T rad itio n al Approach
of G roup In stru c tio n " (unpublished d is s e rta tio n , New Y ork U niversity,
1963).
27.
Judson M arc V ander Wal, "The R elatio n sh ip s Between Two Methods of
T eaching College Biology in A chievem ent and A ttitude" (unpublished
d is s e rta tio n . W estern M ichigan U n iv ersity , 1972).
28.
John Tom bs Flynn, "The Influence of P rogram m ed In stru c tio n upon
L earning in Educational Psychology" (unpublished d is s e rta tio n , Indiana
U n iversity, 1963).
29.
M ichael G. McKee in O sc a r K. B uros, e d . , Seventh M ental M easu rem ents Y earbook, Vol. I (Highland P ark, N. J. : The G ryphon P ress,
1972), 150.
30.
A. L. E dw ards, E dw ards P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule (New York:
Psychological C orporation, 1957).
31.
A lfred B. H eilburn, J r . , in O scar K. Buros, e d ., Seventh M ental M ea­
su re m e n ts Y earbook, Vol. I (Highland P ark, N. J. : The G ryphon P re ss,
1972), 149.
32.
I b id ., 140-148 id en tifies 1 ,080 such stu d ie s.
33.
M ilton Rokeach, The Open and C losed Mind (New York: Basic Books, In c .,
1960), 57.
34. ' E. M. B erger, "The R elation Between E x p ressed A cceptance of Self and
E x p ressed A cceptance of O th ers, " Journal of A bnorm al and Social Ps y ­
chology (1952), 47:778-782; E. Ho ffer, The T rue B eliever (New York:
H a rp e rs, 1951); and S. R. Hathaway and J. C. McKinley, The M innesota
M ultiphasic P erso n ality Inventory (New York: Psychological C orporation,
1943).
CHAPTER IR
■ DESIGN OF THE STUDY
In the previous c h a p te r, th e r e a d e r has b een given the opportunity of
becom ing acquainted w ith a re p re s e n ta tiv e sam p le of e m p iric a l r e s e a r c h r e ­
latin g to co m p arativ e a n aly se s of college teaching m ethods.
R eg a rd le ss of the
d ecisio n to e ith e r r e ta in o r r e je c t a "no d ifferen c e" h y p o th esis, one thing is
i
c le a r in each p ro je c t: in evaluating th e effectiv en ess of college in stru c tio n we
need to co n sid e r not only th e accum u latio n of knowledge but th e developm ent of
p ro b lem -so lv in g s k ills and d e sira b le a ttitu d e s.
Thus, th e re a d e r is invited to
r e tu r n once again to the c e n tra l p ro b lem of th is p re se n t study: is th e re any
significant d ifferen ce betw een studen ts taught by the fa c e -to -fa c e in stru c tio n a l
method and th o se taught by an individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ra m w ith re fe re n c e
to th e ir achieving sele c ted objectives ap p licab le to a c o u rse of study dealing
w ith ethnic m in o rity g ro u p s, and is th e re a d ifferen ce in the achievem ent of
th e se students which can be re la te d to p e rso n ality v a ria b le s w ith re fe re n c e to
s c o re s d eriv ed fro m the A chievem ent Scale of the Edw ards P erso n al P referen ce
Schedule and Rokeach D ogm atism Scale? In light of th is sta te m e n t of the p ro b ­
lem and the v ario u s questions in h e re n t in the problem which have been ra is e d ■
in Q ia p te r I, this p re s e n t chapter w ill re v e a l the design of the study
51
u n d e rta k en and w ill focus on the follow ing: I) th e tra n s la tio n of th e problem
into s ta tis tic a l hypotheses w hich can be defined as the ex p ectatio n about events
b ased on g e n e ra liz a tio n s of the assu m ed re la tio n sh ip s betw een v a ria b le s ; 2)
the d elin eatio n of the e x p erim en tal tre a tm e n ts w ith re fe re n c e to the co u rse of
study o ffered and the two m ethods of in stru c tio n u tilized ; 3) a d e sc rip tio n of
the population as w ell as a d is c lo su re of the sam p lin g p ro c e d u re followed; and
finally, 4) the m ethod u tiliz e d fo r the co llectio n , org an izatio n , and a n aly sis of
th e o b serv atio n s w hich w e re u se d to te s t the h y p o th eses.
. •
STATEM ENT OF THE HYPOTHESES
The questions im p lic it in the sta te m e n t of the p ro b lem can b e st be
an sw ered by tra n s la tin g th e p ro b le m into su itab le hypotheses w hich can in tu rn
be su b jected to sy ste m a tic te s tin g p ro c e d u re s .
Since it is e x tre m e ly difficult
to obtain unequivocal su p p o rt for a h y p o th esis, the r e s e a r c h e r intended to te s t
and d isp ro v e its negation, hence, the negative o r "no d iffe re n c e s ” v e rs io n of a
hypothesis (com m only called the null hy p o th esis) w as used throughout this
r e s e a r c h p ro je c t.
Six such hypotheses w e re te ste d as follow s:
N ull H ypothesis N um ber I :
T h e re is no significan t d ifferen c e betw een g ro u p m eans fo r s tu ­
den ts in th e tra d itio n a l c la s s and th o se in the ex p erim en tal c la s s r e l a ­
tiv e to achieving specified o bjectives a sso c ia te d w ith the cognitive
52 .
dom ain.
Alternate Hypothesis Number I:
T here, is a sig n ifican t d ifferen ce betw een group m eans for
students in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and th o se in the ex p erim en tal c la ss
re la tiv e to achieving sp ecified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith the cognitive
dom ain.
Null H ypothesis N um ber 2:
T h e re is no .significant d ifferen ce betw een g ro u p m eans for
I
students in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and those in th e e x p erim en tal c la ss
:
re la tiv e to achieving sp ecified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith the affective
I
dom ain.
.
1
A ltern ate H ypothesis N um ber 2:
T h e re is a sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een gro u p m eans fo r
• students in th e tra d itio n a l c la s s and th o se in the e x p erim en tal c la ss
re la tiv e to achieving sp ecified objectives a sso c ia te d w ith the affective
dom ain.
.
Null H ypothesis N um ber 3:
T here is no significan t d ifferen ce betw een g ro u p m eans for
students in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and those in the e x p erim en tal c la ss
re la tiv e to achieving specified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith the psycho­
m otor dom ain.
.53
Alternate Hypothesis Number 3:
T h ere is. a sig n ifican t d ifferen ce betw een group m eans for
students in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and those in the e x p erim en tal c la ss
re la tiv e to achieving specified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith the psychom otor dom ain.
Null H ypothesis N um ber 4:
T h e re is no sig n ifican t d ifferen ce betw een g ro u p m eans for
students in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and th o se in the e x p erim en tal c la ss
re la tiv e to achieving specified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith the so cial
stu d ies (the com bination of cognitive, affective, and psychom otor
I
dom ains).
A lte rn a te H ypothesis N um ber 4:
T h ere is a sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een group m eans for
students in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and th o se in the e x p erim en tal c la s s
re la tiv e to achieving specified o b jectiv es a sso c iate d w ith the so cial
stu d ie s (the com bination of cognitive, affective, and psychom otor
dom ains).
Null H ypothesis N um ber 5:
T h ere is no sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een the m ean p e rfo rm ­
ance of the individual students in each of the two c la s s e s w ith re fe re n c e
to th e ir s c o re s on the A chievem ent Scale of the E dw ards Personal
P refere n c e Schedule.
54
Alternate Hypothesis Number 5:
T h e re is a significan t d ifferen ce betw een th e m ean p e rfo rm ­
ance of the individual students in each of the two c la s s e s w ith r e f e r ­
ence to th e ir s c o r e s on the A chievem ent Scale of the E dw ards P e r­
sonal P refere n c e Schedule.
Null H ypothesis N um ber 6:
H ie re is no sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een the m ean p e rfo rm ­
ance of the individual students in each of the two c la s s e s w ith r e f e r ­
ence to th e ir s c o re s oh the R okeach D ogm atism Scale.
A ltern ate H ypothesis N um ber 6:
T h e re is a sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een the m ean p e rfo rm ­
ance of the individual studen ts in each of the two c la s s e s w ith r e f e r ­
ence to th e ir s c o re s on the Rokeach D ogm atism Scale;
As p rev io u sly sta te d , in o rd e r to p rev en t the re je c tio n of a tru e null
hypothesis by com m itting a Type I (or alpha) e r r o r , it w as d eterm in ed to le t
alpha equal . 05.
This m eans th a t if a d ifferen ce a s la rg e o r la r g e r than the one
obtained could occur by chance a s often a s 5 tim e s out of 100, the null hypoth­
e s is (no significant D ifference betw een the m eans) can be re je c te d .
The .05
significance level re p re s e n ts a fa ir balance betw een the p ro b ab ility of co m m it­
tin g an alpha and beta e r r o r .
;
v
55
THE EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS
Since th is r e s e a r c h p ro je c t w as co n cern ed w ith the achievem ent of
students e n ro lle d in a c o lle g e-lev e l so cial scien ce co u rse w ith re s p e c t to th e ir
being su b jected to two d ifferen t teach in g m ethods, it is a p p ro p ria te for the
re a d e r to be inform ed about the c o u rse in qu estio n as w ell a s the teach in g
m ethods to be em ployed.
The C ourse of Study
An in te rd is c ip lin a ry c o u rse in ethnic stu d ies w as offered as p a rt of
the so cial scie n c e c u rric u lu m at E a s te rn M ontana College d u rin g the fall q u a r­
te r , 1974. ■ The c o u rse w as offered fo r all stu d en ts w ithout p re re q u is ite s or
r e s tr ic tio n s r e la tiv e to c la ssific a tio n o r c la s s s iz e .
Students w e re p e rm itted
to u se the five q u a rte r h o u rs of c re d it obtained fro m th is c o u rse of study in
e ith e r a m a jo r o r m inor a re a of so cia l scien ce o r, w ith the p e rm issio n of the
C hairm an of th e ir m ajo r d e p artm en t, as p a rt of the re q u ire m e n t fo r other
acad em ic a r e a s , i. e . , e le m e n ta ry education, sociology, o r psychology.
F ro m
p a st e x p e rie n c e , it w as expected that the g r e a te r num ber of stu d en ts enrolling
in the c o u rse would u se the c re d its to fu lfill a g e n e ra l education re q u ire m e n t
in so cia l sc ie n c e o r as a fre e elec tiv e .
Thus it w as an ticip ated th a t when the
c la s s m a te ria liz e d , th e re would be a fa ir re p re se n ta tio n fro m all academ ic
56
a r e a s w ithin the college com m unity, a s w ell a s a d iv e rsity of ages and back
ground in academ ic a c tiv itie s .
The outline fo r th is c o u rse of study w as as
fo llo w s :
A Study of A m e ric a 's Ethnic M inorities
P a rt I -
The A m erican D re am --A n A m erican D ilem m a: A Study
of P rejudice and D iscrim in a tio n in the A m e ric an Society
A -T he N atu re of P rejudice
B -T he D ynam ics of R acism
C-;The S tru c tu re s of Prejudice
P a rt II -
Bondage, B ack-Seats and B lues: A Study of th e Black
Man and the P ro m ise of A m erica
A -O ut of Bondage into the P rom ised Land
B - M yths, H eroes and R eality
C -A chievem ent A gainst All Odds
P a rt III -
Chicanos a t the C ro s sro a d s : A Study of A m e ric a 's
Second L a rg e s t M inority
A -M exican A m erican s in H is to ric a l P erspective
B -B ronze Power and Brown B erets
C-V iva la R aza
P a rt IV -
Beans, Blankets and B ureaucracy: A Study of A m e ric a 's
F i r s t Inhabitants
A -Noble Savage o r Child of N ature
B - Haunted by H isto ry
C -T he Case of the N on-V anishing Indian
P a rt V -
A m e ric a --C ru c ib le or C aldron of Conflict: A Study of
A ssim ilatio n and R esistan ce of A m e ric a 's Ethnic
M inorities
57
A -" F ro m Many, O ne”
B -H a rv e st of D iscontent
C -H eritag e of Conflict
In the developm ent of th is c o u rse of study, th is r e s e a r c h e r w as
influenced by the underlying a ssu m p tio n th a t students should be guided tow ard
d e m o c ra tic v alues and b eh av io rs which a re th e foundation of b u r A m erican way
of life in o rd e r th a t each student w ill have the freed o m and opportunity to
develop h is innate c a p a c itie s in our d e m o cratic so ciety .
To acco m p lish this
it is n e c e s s a ry :
a . to develop a sound and functional knowledge of h is to ric a l
events and th e ir c a u se s, the in te rre la tio n s h ip of m an, and
the b a sic so cia l p ro c e ss e s in w hich m an engages to m eet
his b a sic needs in h is e ffo rts to im p ro v e his w ays of living;
b. to inculcate an a p p reciatio n and re s p e c t fo r o th er p e rso n s
w hich w ill be evidenced in b eh av io r tow ard o th e rs that is
b ased on re s p e c t fo r individual dignity re g a rd le s s of ra c e ,
c re e d , national origin, o r so cial or econom ic sta tu s;
c. to in s ta ll a s e n se of re sp o n sib ility in the individual tow ard
g o vernm ental functions and th e ir im pact on daily living;
d. to stim u la te the ab ility to think c ritic a lly and c re a tiv e ly
in all situatio n s involving hum an re la tio n s h ip s ;
.
e . .to provide p ra c tic e in d e m o c ra tic actio n at school and
com m unity le v els which w ill develop group s k ills and
so cia l com petencies based upon re s p e c t fo r d ifferen c es
' of opinion, and a re s p e c t fo r the rig h ts of the individual;
f. to provide o p p ortunities fo r each student to becom e a d em o ­
c ra tic p e rso n w hose behavior and attitu d es a re c o n siste n t w ith ■
our d e m o c ra tic p rin c ip le s of co o p erativ e group living;
58
g - to rec o g n ize the in c re a s in g need fo r w orld u n d erstanding,
ex p lo rin g im plications of sc ie n tific and technological,
a d v an ces fo r hum an w e lfa re ;
h« to fo s te r a c o n ce rn fo r the needs and p ro b lem s of o th e rs
in o rd e r that we m ay b rin g about changes c o n siste n t w ith
.'our d e m o c ra tic id e a ls; and
i , to encourage the u se of p ro b lem solving tech n iq u es in
c o n sid e rin g is s u e s facing people in an in c re a sin g ly
com plex so ciety .
In ad d itio n to th e se goal ex p ectatio n s, it w as an ticip ated th a t th is
c o u rse of study would co n trib u te to encouraging each student to becom e a
p ro c e ss -o rie n te d being.
P ro cess o rie n ta tio n m eans sim ply th a t m an has w ith ­
in his p e rs o n a lity elem en ts of dynam ism , m otion, and re sp o n sib ility which
enable him. to liv e a s an adequate and con trib u tin g m em b er of th e w o rld of
w hich he is a p a r t.
Not only is m an p ro c e s s -o rie n te d , but he can becom e m o re
so th ro u g h planned educational e x p erien c e s.
Some of the p ro c e s s e s which w e re
given high p r io r ity w ithin th is in te rd is c ip lin a ry c o u rse in ethnic stu d ies a re as
follows
■ a . P e rceiv in g - - one m ust.have im p re s sio n s, id e as, and
co n cep ts out of w hich to add to o n e’s own knowledge
and life fro m w hich he can m ake sen se fro m the p a st; '
b« C om m unicating - -th e re m ust be th e ability of effectively
s h a rin g o n e 's own thoughts and id e a s;
c , L o v e --w e should take c o n stru ctiv e ste p s to h elp the
stu d en t u n d erstan d the sa tisfa c tio n s that can come
fro m re la tin g to o th e rs in m utually satisfy in g w ays;
59
d. D ecision M aking--w hile s im ila r to p ro b lem -so lv in g , the
ab ility to m ake decisio n s is unique in th a t m eaningful d e ­
cisio n s can and often should be m ade in an in tu itiv e m anner;
e . Knowing- -know ledge is e s s e n tia l if we a re to m ake w ise
d e c is io n s , to love in ten sely , and to com m unicate c le a rly
(teaching how to know is m o re e ss e n tia l than teach in g
th e known);
f . P a tte rn in g --o n e needs to have at h is com m and the s k ills for
o rg anizing m a te ria l, both old and new, into c o h eren t p a tte rn s; ■
g . C re a tin g --th e in tric a c ie s of th e c re a tiv e p ro c e s s cannot be
le ft to chance if w e expect our stu d en ts to be able to shape
h is own id eas into som ething new w hich m ay be e ith e r for
h im s e lf or fo r the outside w o rld , a b e tte r ap p ro ach or
so lution; and
h . V alu in g --o p p o rtu n itie s should be given students to becom e
involved w ith v a lu e-lad e n situ atio n s in o rd e r to s h a re w ith .
h im the ex citem en t w hich the e th ic al can play in adding ■
unity and cohesion to life.
T h ese then w e re the c o u rse g o als a s esta b lish e d by the in s tru c to r.
In
addition, a s e r ie s of p e rfo rm an c e o b jectiv es w e re developed w hich w e re made
available to each student.
th e re w e re th re e u n its.
W ithin each of the five p a rts of th e c o u rse of study
Each unit c a r rie d w ith it a statem e n t s im ila r to the
■following w hich is tak en fro m P a rt I, Unit One, "The N ature of P reju d ice ”
(th e e n tire c o u rs e as p re p a re d fo r th e students in the e x p e rim e n ta l group has
been placed on d ep o sit in the lib r a ry of the College of E ducation, Montana
State U n iv e rsity ):
A fter c arefu lly proceeding through th is unit of study, you
60
w ill be able to:
1. D istinguish betw een p re ju d ic e, antipathy,
se g re g a tio n and d iscrim in a tio n .
2. D iscrim in a te betw een altitu d in al and o v ert
p re ju d ic al beh av io r.
3. D eterm ine the d ifferen ce betw een p reju d ice
as an individual m a tte r a s com p ared to
p reju d ice a s a co llectiv e o r group phenom enon.
4. Define w hat is m eant by stereo ty p in g and
d e m o n strate how it is re la te d to p reju d ice.
5. R ecognize the g re a te r im p licatio n s of the
p ro c e s s of p ro je c tio n (scapegoating) v is - a - v is
r a c ia l p re ju d ic e.
A fter c arefu lly proceeding through th is unit of study; the
in s tru c to r intends th at you w ill:
1, Be aw are of, and take actio n to elim in ate, any
p reju d ice you m ight hold tow ard any m in o rity
group.
2. In co rp o rate e g a lita ria n p rin c ip le s into e v e ry
phase of your life to the end th at p reju d ice and
d isc rim in a tio n m ight be red u ced o r even e lim ­
inated in o u r so ciety .
. The E x p erim en tal Method of In stru ctio n
The e x p erim en tal m ethod of in s tru c tio n co n sisted of allow ing a se le c t
num ber of students to pursue the co u rse in ethnic stu d ies by m ean s of an
individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ra m .
Ideally, individualized in stru c tio n m eans an
a rra n g e m e n t th a t m akes it p o ssib le at all tim e s fo r each student to be engaged
61
in le a rn in g th o se things th a t a r e m o st a p p ro p ria te for h im s e lf a s an individual.
It is b a se d on the assu m p tio n th a t a ll stu d en ts have the sam e cap a b ilities.
While they may not have the sam e capacity, they a ll p o s se ss the ab ility to le a rn .
Thus, the v e ry h e a r t of the p ro g ra m is student p a rtic ip a tio n in the learn in g
p ro c e ss .
The c o u rse d e sc rib e d in th e p rev io u s sectio n w as p ro g ram m ed by
th is r e s e a rc h e r fo r individualized in stru c tio n a l activ ity and w as m ad e p o ssib le
by a g en ero u s g ra n t fro m the F o rd Foundation V enture Fund.
E ach of the five
volum es of the student access-w o rk b o o k s p re s e n ts a s e r ie s of sev en step s for
each of the fifteen units of study, thus allow ing each student th e opportunity to
p ro ceed through the m a te ria l in a sy ste m a tic m anner.
T h ese s te p s , w hich w e re
s im ila r fo r each u n it,w ere a s follow s:
Step One
E stab lish in g G o a ls--th e s e goals a r e th o se d iscu ssed
in the previo u s se c tio n of th is ch ap te r.
Step Two
A c q u irin g Insights - - a fte r g etting h is d ir e c t- s e t, the
stu d en t th en pro ceed ed to lis te n to a th irty m inute
c a s s e tte le c tu re by th e in s tru c to r.
Step T h ree
E x p re ssin g O pinions--e a c h student had a c c e ss to a
w orkbook in w hich he had the opportunity of e x p re ssin g
h is opinions to a nu m b er of questions re la tiv e to the
m a te ria l p re se n te d in th e le c tu re as w ell a s selected
m a te ria ls w hich ap p ear in a b stra c te d fo rm .
Step F o u r
C om paring A p p ro a c h e s--the student th en re tu rn e d to
the second sid e of th e c a s s e tte tap e and liste n e d to a
d isc u ssio n of a ll the m a te ria l co v ered in the unit of
/
I
62
study. This d isc u ssio n tak es place betw een the
in s tru c to r and a num ber of students who w e re
involved in the developm ent of th e c o u rse in its
fo rm ativ e stag e.
Step Five
A sse ssin g P r o g r e s s - -a t th is stag e, th e student w as
encouraged to te s t h is knowledge and attitu d e s about
the orig in ally sta te d g o als s e t fo rth in Step One.
Step Six
Evaluating A chieve me nt - - the student w as evaluated
by answ erin g a num ber of subjective type questions
w hich w e re subm itted fo r grading.
Step Seven
Expanding H o riz o n s --b efo re leaving the unit in
question, the student w as encouraged to re a d a n d /o r
rev iew se le c te d lite r a tu r e a n d /o r engage in a p r e ­
se le c te d r e s e a r c h pro b lem .
At the com pletion of each of the five p a rts (after com pleting each of the th re e
u n its of study) the student w as given an opportunity of listen in g to a tape con­
taining in terview s w ith a num ber of p e rso n s involved w ith th e su b ject (i. e . ,
pro m in en t N eg ro es, Indians, a u th o rs, sta te sm e n , e t c , ) and of view ing a sp e r
cially p re p a re d slide and sound surv ey of the e n tire p a rt u n d er co n sid eratio n .
At th is tim e the student w as re q u ire d to subm it to an objective exam ination
over the e n tire su b ject covered by th e re s p e c tiv e p a rt of th e c o u rse .
T hus, each student involved in th is individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ram
had a c c e ss to five student w orkbooks, fo rty c a s s e tte p ro g ra m s , and five slide
p ro g ra m s (consisting of eighty slid e s each).
\
63
The T ra d itio n a l Method of In stru ctio n
T he tra d itio n a l m ethod of in s tru c tio n followed w ith re fe re n c e to th is
r e s e a r c h p ro je c t w as th a t w hich has a lre a d y been d e sc rib e d a s "fa c e -to -fa c e "
in stru c tio n .
F a c e -to -fa c e m ethods of teach in g such as the le c tu re , group-
d isc u ssio n , and the tu to ria l a re ex p licit ex am p les of teach in g technologies
b ased on tra d itio n a l assu m p tio n s concerning the te a c h in g -le a rn in g linkage.
The in s tru c to r is not only assu m e d to be a su fficien t condition but a lso a n e c e s ­
s a r y condition fo r le a rn in g , and outputs fro m th e te ac h in g -le a rn in g situ atio n
a re a ssu m e d to be a function of d iffe re n tia l teach in g inputs.
E ven a s a s e le c t num ber of stu d en ts w e re assig n ed to the e x p e ri­
m ental g ro u p th e re b y following the individual in stru c tio n p ro g ra m p rev io u sly
d e sc rib e d , so a se le c t num ber of stu d en ts w e re assig n ed to th e co n tro l group
in w hich th e fa c e -to -fa c e m ethod w as em ployed.
The c o u rse of study for both
g roups w as id en tic al w ith each group p re se n te d w ith id en tical g o a ls, subjected
to id en tic al le c tu r e s , provided w ith id en tical re s o u rc e m a te ria ls and evaluated
w ith id en tic al te s ts .
The d ifferen ce betw een the two groups w as not in co u rse
content but in m ethod of in stru c tio n .
W hereas the control g ro u p had le c tu re s
p re se n te d in a tra d itio n a l fa c e -to -fa c e m ethod, the e x p erim en tal group had
a c c e ss to th e sa m e le c tu re s v ia audio ta p e .
F u rth e rm o re , w h e re a s the control
group has am ple opportunity fo r u n s tru c tu re d d iscu ssio n in each c la s s sessio n ,
the e x p e rim e n ta l gro u p w as subjected to a s tru c tu re d p ro g ra m provided in the
w orkbooks.
POPULATION DESCRIPTION
The students p a rtic ip a tin g in th is r e s e a r c h p ro je c t r e p r e s e n t a sam p le
of the population w hich e le c t to take a g e n e ra l education so cial stu d ies co u rse
a s p a rt of th e ir college c u rric u lu m .
Thus it m ust be understood th at th e su b ­
je c ts of th is in v estig atio n w e re lim ited to those, who opted to e n ro ll in the
c o u rse in question as it w as offered in the college c la s s schedule.
i
Once th is
c la s s had m a te ria liz e d , students w e re assig n e d to e ith e r the co n tro l or e x p e ri­
m ental group by a ran d o m iz atio n (odd-even) m ethod.
!
,
■
COLLECTING, ORGANIZING, AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
At the f i r s t m eeting of the c la s s (Septem ber 26, 1974), the students
e n ro lled in the ethnic stu d ies c o u rse w e re divided into two g roups equal in size
by a ran d o m izatio n m ethod.
Once th e se two groups had b een co n stitu ted , all
students w e re a d m in istered both the A chievem ent Scale of th e Edw ards Personal
P refere n c e Schedule and the Rokeach D ogm atism Scale.
T h ese te s ts w e re a d ­
m in iste re d and g rad ed by the C ounseling C enter of E a s te rn M ontana College.
T hese in stru m e n ts appear in Appendix A and B.
Wlien s c o re s w e re re c e iv e d fo r a ll students on the D ogm atism Scale,
65
th e students w e re c la s s ifie d a s being either, high in dogm atism or low in dog­
m a tism w ith the m edian s c o re being used to d istin g u ish betw een th e se two
c a te g o rie s .
Students w ithin th e se two c a te g o rie s w e re then c la ssifie d a c c o rd ­
ing to th e ir s c o re s on the P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule in a s im ila r m anner
w ith the upper fifty p e rc e n t being c la ssifie d a s high a ch ie v e rs and the low er
fifty p e rc e n t a s low a c h ie v e rs .
T his p ro c e d u re w as done fo r stu d en ts in each
of the two groups involved in th is r e s e a r c h e x p erim en t.
The following c h a rt
illu s tra te s how these, students w e re tre a te d w ith re fe re n c e to th e te s t of the
h y p o th e se s:
C ontrol Group
A chiever
High
D ogm atic
Low ■
A chiever
A chiever
Low
D ogm atic
Low
A chiever I . 2
E xperim ental G roup
66
Students in both g roups w e re evaluated by m eans of five p ro c to re d
e ssa y te s ts and five p ro c to re d objective te s ts .
All e ssa y te s ts w e re graded by
a v erag in g independent ra tin g s subm itted by a panel of r a t e r s co n sistin g of five
seco n d ary education m a jo rs re c ru ite d fro m an advanced c la s s in evaluating
so c ia l sc ie n c e o b jectiv es.
All s c o re s w e re re c o rd e d as ab so lu te nu m b ers and
th e to ta l o f a ll s c o re s w e re u sed in calcu latin g gro u p m eans, fo r p u rp o se s of
te stin g th e nu ll h y p otheses.
F o r th e p u rp o se of additional study, te s t item s
w e re c la s s ifie d by th is r e s e a r c h e r acco rd in g to each of the th re e objective
dom ains (cognitive, affectiv e, and psycho m ot or) as w ell as s c o r e s obtained by
stu d en ts in each of th e se a r e a s .
The e x p erim en tal d esig n c o n sisted of a 2x2x2 m a trix on w hich w as
p e rfo rm ed a n a n aly sis of v a ria n c e te stin g the significance of d ifferen ce of two
independent v a ria b le s (the co n tro l and ex p erim en tal m ethods), the significant
d ifferen ce betw een th e two s e ts of m o d e ra to r v a ria b le s (the E dw ards Personal
P re fe re n c e Schedule and the Rokeach D ogm atism Scale), and in addition, to
te s t th e sign ifican ce of d ifferen ce of v a rio u s in te ra c tio n s.
T h ese p ro ced u res
w e re done fo r a ll dependent v a ria b le s (achievem ent of cognitive, affective, and
psychom otor o b jectiv es, and to ta l of s c o re s of all th ree) m eaning th at four AOV
stu d ies w e re com pleted. ■
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARIZATION OF THE DATA
T his ch ap ter p ro p o se s to s e t fo rth the findings of a s ta tis tic a l
a n aly sis of the study under in vestigatio n including the following: P ro ced u res
fo r a ssig n in g students a cco rd in g to independent v a ria b le s ; C lassific a tio n of
students a cco rd in g to s c o re s on m o d e ra to r v a ria b le s ; A ssignm ent of s c o re s
fo r dependent v a ria b le s ; A nalysis of v a ria n c e fo r the four dependent v a r i­
a b le s; and the t- T e s t fo r a differen ce betw een stan d a rd deviations fo r each
of the four dependent v a ria b le s .
All qu an titativ e d ata w as a sse m b le d w ith the
u se of a M onroe 1785 Mini - C om puter.
SCORES OF THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
At the f i r s t m eeting of th e c la s s on S eptem ber 26, 1974, the s tu ­
den ts e n ro lle d in the ethnic stu d ies c o u rse w e re ran d o m ly divided by an "odde v en ” m ethod.
This p ro c e d u re produced a co n tro l group n u m b erin g forty
students and an ex p erim en tal group n u m b erin g fo rty -o n e stu d en ts.
Subse­
quently, th re e m e m b e rs of th e contro l group w ithdrew fro m the c o u rse and
one student re c e iv e d a g ra d e of incom plete due to ex ce ssiv e ab se n te eism .
T hus, the to ta l num ber of students involved in the following s ta tis tic a l study .
for the co n tro l group (or M^) equalled 36.
In addition, five of th e fo rty -o n e
students assig n ed to the e x p erim en tal g ro u p w e re re je c te d fo r inclusion in the
68
study: th ree.w ith d rew fro m the c o u rse and two re c e iv e d incom plete g ra d e s
due to ex ce ssiv e a b se n te eism .
Thus, the to tal num ber of stu d en ts involved in
th e following s ta tis tic a l study fo r the ex p erim en tal group (or M2) equalled 36.
In each c a s e , the students re c e iv in g incom plete g ra d e s had not p a rtic ip a ted to
an extent to w a rra n t inclusion in the study.
The to ta l num ber of stud en ts p a rtic ip a tin g in the follow ing s ta t is ­
tic a l study w as seventy-tw o (72) w ith th ir ty -s ix (36) in each of the two indepen­
dent v a ria b le s (the C ontrol Group, M^, and th e E x p erim en tal G roup, M^).
Thus w ith an equal and even num ber in each, an equal and even num ber of
students w e re u ltim a te ly a ssig n e d to the c e lls c h a ra c te riz in g the m o d erato r
v a ria b le s (eighteen students assig n e d a s High D ogm atic in both
eighteen stu dents assig n ed as Low D ogm atic in both
and M2,
and M , and nine
students assig n ed a s e ith e r High A ch iev ers o r Low A ch iev ers in the High Dog­
m atic and Low D ogm atic c ateg o ry in both
and M2).
SCORES OF THE MODERATOR VARIABLES
Once the control and ex p erim en tal groups had b een constituted,
a ll students w e re a d m in istered both th e A chievem ent Scale of th e Edw ards
P ersonal P refere n c e Schedule and the R okeach D ogm atism S cale.
ra n g e fo r s c o r e s on the R okeach D ogm atism Scale is +120 to -120.
The p o ssib le
The actu al
ra n g e fo r students in the control gro u p w as 444 to -92 and the ra n g e for s tu - 1
' 69
dents in the e x p erim en tal g ro u p w as +30 to -60.
Since s c o re s a t e ith e r
e x tre m e s of the continuum r e p r e s e n t a high lev el of dogm atism , it w as decided
to c alc u la te th e upper and low er q u a rtile fo r th is c h a ra c te riz a tio n .
Thus, s tu ­
dents sc o rin g +44 to - I and -56 to -92 in the control group w e re d esignated a s
th o se w ith high dogm atism w hile students sc o rin g +30 to +15 and -44 to -60 in
the ex p erim en tal gro u p w e re d esign ated a s th o se w ith high dogm atism .
The
re m a in in g stu d en ts in e ith e r group w e re d esig n ated as th o se w ith low dogm a­
tis m .
The p o ssib le ra n g e fo r s c o re s on the A chievem ent S cale of the
Edw ards P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule is 0 to 28.
The actu al ra n g e for s tu ­
dents in the co n tro l group w as 6 to 20 and the ra n g e fo r stu d en ts in th e e x p e ri­
m ental group w as 7 to 22.
Since it w as n e c e s s a ry to c h a ra c te riz e th e high and
low a ch ie v e rs w ithin th e re s p e c tiv e d o g m atism c ate g o rie s, th e s c o r e s w ere
a rra n g e d acc o rd in g to the dogm atism le v el w ith the m edian s c o re used to
d istin g u ish betw een high and low a c h ie v e rs.
Thus th e ran g e fo r students, in
th e control group w as a s follows.: High D ogm atis m - - High A c h iev e rs, 12 to 16,
Low A ch iev ers, 6 to 11; Low D ogm atism --H ig h A ch iev ers, 14 to 20, Low
A ch iev ers, 8 to 13.
The ra n g e fo r stu d en ts in the e x p erim en tal group w as as
follow s: High D ogm atism --H igh A ch iev ers, 14 to 24, Low A c h iev e rs, 8 to 13;
Low D o gm atism --H igh A c h iev e rs, 16 to 22, Low A ch iev ers, 7 to 22.
)
70.
SCORES OF THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES
The p e rfo rm an c e of each student w as evaluated by m ean s of an
exam ination co n sistin g of five e ss a y q u estio n s and five m u ltip le choice sectio n s
(one for each of the five u nits of study).
The e ssa y q uestions w e re graded by a
panel of five e v alu a to rs and the m ultiple choice te s ts w e re m achine g rad ed .
In each in sta n ce , the e ss a y s w e re com piled into one package and evaluated
a t one tim e by each of the m em b ers of th e evaluation panel.
A m odel w as
provided by the in s tru c to r and the s c o re s su b m itted by th e panel w e re av erag ed
*
to produce a s c o re fo r u se in the s ta tis tic a l a n a ly sis.
All te s t item s w e re .
p re p a re d by th is r e s e a r c h e r and w e re designed to evaluate th e v a rio u s objec!
tiv e s (cognitive, affective, and psychom otor) w hich w e re ex p licitly s e t fo rth
in the c o u rse of study.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR D1
T able I shows the s c o re s d e riv e d fo r D1 (the cognitive dom ain) for
M1 (the co n tro l group) and M2 (the e x p erim en tal group).
The idiographic
display in F ig u re s I and 2 p re s e n ts th is data in the fo rm of a h isto g ra m .
The
re a d e r w ill note th at w ith an N of 72, the M ean for M1 is 267.22, w hile the
M ean fo r Mg is 289.30.
The Standard D eviation fo r M1 is 36. 69, w hile the
71
Standard D eviation for M2 is 24. 37.
T able 2 lis ts the E ffects fo r D^.
The F fa c to r fo r M ethods shows
9. 818/7. 04 is g re a te r than I . 00 a t . 01 confidence lev el, th e re fo re we can
r e je c t H ypothesis N um ber I w hich sta te d "th e re is no d ifferen ce betw een group
m eans fo r students in the tra d itio n a l c la ss and th o se in th e e x p erim en tal c la s s
re la tiv e to achieving sp ec ifie d o b jectiv es a ss o c ia te d w ith th e cognitive d o m ain .”
The F fa c to r fo r s c o re s of the fir s t.a n d second o rd e r of in te ra c tio n give no
sufficient re a s o n fo r re je c tin g H ypotheses N um ber 5 and 6.
/
72
T able I
S cores
mI
C ontrol Group
Low D ogm atic
High D ogm ati
.
S1-240
S2-226
Sg-287
S4-287
S5 -260
Sg-276
S7 -SOg
Sg-263
Sg-280
S i-2 6 0
S2-271
S3-154
S4 -325
Ss-246
86-240
S7-293
Sg-184
^ Sg-214
S i-2 9 0
82-278
83-284
S4 - 2 7 9
S5 - 2 3 O
Sg-326
S7-232
Sg-264
Sg-293
S i-312
82-268
S3 -276
S4 -242
S5 -294
86-283
S7 -S lb
Sg-277
. Sg-261
M2
E x p erim en tal Group
•
:
■:
'
S i-2 7 5
82-288
Sg-296
S4 -290 '
S5 -300
86-271
S7 -SOd
Sg-246
Sg-297
S i-2 7 3
82-297
S3-295
S4 -288
S5 -275 .
86-276
S7 -SlS
88-303
S9-345
S1-280
S2 -246
S3-26O
84 -282
S5 -SOS
S6 -232
S7 -SOO
Sg-321
Sg-257
S i-3 2 0
82-295
S3 -285
S4 -284
S5 -SSl
86-288
S7 -3 2 7
.. Sg-282
Sg-278
■§
>
Sj
I
K
S
I
.g
K
§
>
■
I
E
t>
Sj
I .
S
F ig u re I
H isto g ram fo r Data of Table I Control Group
F req u e n c ies
N = 72
M = 267.22
N=6 N=6
-j
UJ
Figure 2
Histogram for Data of Table I Experimental Group
D1 Frequencies
N = 72
M = 289.30
SD = 24.37
N=8
N=I N=I
N=I N=I
75
I
T able 2
T able of Effects fo r
EFFEC T S
TOTAL
Cells
SS
df
ms
F
• 7/ 1X
. j 7 6 7 2 3 .0 0
: 19391.888
7
Methods
8795.138
i
8 7 9 5 .1 3 8
9.818*
D ogm atism •
1 5 0 2 .1 3 8
i
1 5 0 2 .1 3 8
1 .6 7 6
i
2 0 7 .1 3 8
0 .2 3 1
A chievem ent
'
2 0 7 .1 3 8
M ethods/
D ogm atism /
.
2 8 3 3 .1 1 2
i
2 8 3 3 .1 1 2
3 .1 6 2
D o gm atism /
A chievem ent
'
2 1 7 2 .0 0 1
i
2 1 7 2 .0 0 1
2 .4 2 4
M ethods/
A chievem ent
3358.668
i
3358.668
3. 749
M ethods/
D o g m a tism /
A chievem ent
523.693
i
5 2 3 .6 9 3
0 .5 8 4
. 5 7 3 3 1 .1 1 2
64
895.798
W ithins
.
*9. 8 1 8 / 7 . 04 is g re a te r than I . 00 a t . 01 confidence lev el, th e re fo re we
can r e je c t hypothesis num ber I .
.76
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR D0
I
,
T able 3 shows the s c o re s d eriv ed fo r D2 (the affectiv e dom ain) fo r
and M2.
The idiographic disp lay in F ig u re s 3 and 4 p re s e n ts th is data in
the fo rm of a h isto g ra m .
The re a d e r w ill note th a t w ith an N of 72, th e Mean
for M1 is 5 6 8 .2 8 , w hile the M ean fo r M2 is 602.56.
The S tandard D eviation
fo r M1 is 6 4 .7 6 , w hile the Standard D eviation fo r Mg is 4 6 .4 9 .
T able 4 lis ts the E ffects fo r D2 .
The F fa c to r fo r M ethods shows
7 .3 6 1 /7 .0 4 is g r e a te r th an 1.00 a t .0 1 confidence lev el, th e re fo re w e can
r e je c t H ypothesis N um ber 2 w hich sta te d " th e re is no d ifferen ce betw een
gro u p m eans fo r students in th e tra d itio n a l c la s s and th o se in th e e x p erim en tal
c la s s re la tiv e to achieving sp ecified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith th e affective
dom ain. " T he F fa c to r fo r the in te ra c tio n betw een Methods and A chievem ent
shows 5. 847/3. 99 is g r e a te r than I . 00 at . 05 confidence lev el, th e re fo re we
can r e je c t H ypothesis N um ber 5 w hich sta te d "th e re is no d ifferen c e betw een
the mean p e rfo rm an c e of the individual stu d en ts in each of th e two c la s s e s w ith
re fe re n c e to th e ir s c o re s on the A chievem ent Scale of the E dw ards P erso n al
P refere n c e Schedule. " F ig u re 5 is an id io g rap h ic display co m p arin g m ean
s c o re s fo r D2 w hich in d icates th at the m ajo r d ifferen ce can be tra c e d to those,
students in M2 who w e re c h a ra c te riz e d as "low a c h ie v e rs.
77
T able 3
D2 S co res
M1
C ontrol G roup
High Dogmatii
S1-529
S2 -480
S3-54O
S4 -610
S5 -544
S1-571
S2 -632
Sg-646
S4 -635
S5 -548
S 6 -5 9 7
S6 -SSS
S? -629
S7 -608
S g -5 8 2
S q-6 4 8
S i -5 4 9
S g -5 9 1
S2"623
Sg-404
S4 -654
S5 -540
S 5 -4 7 3
. Low D ogm atic
'
M2
E x p erim en tal Group
S9-650
S1-SSS
S2 -638
S g -5 9 1
S4 -5 8 8
S5 -562
S6 -5 5 2
§
i>
O
i
• hI
■
I
t>
g,
i-*«
q
i
S7 -597
8 7 - 6 8 6
S g -4 3 6
S g -5 9 9
S9-484
S9-712
S i -5 9 8
S i-6 3 2
S2 -619
Sg-637
S4 -597 ■
S5 -547
S6 -702
S7 -SlO
S g -5 3 7 '
S2 -5 2 2
S g -5 5 6
i-Lc
S4 -SSl
S5 -610
S6 -SSl
S7 -601
S'
I
S9 - 6 I 9
S9-499
S1-648
S2 -565
Sg-556
S4 -SSO
S5 -565
S1-644
S2 -609
Sg-585
.S5-694
S6 -5 3 2
S6 -5 7 2
S7 -65.3
S7 -633
S g -5 4 5
S g -6 7 2
S9-559
S9-6IO
S g -6 1 5
S4 -6 2 9
S
I
S4
3
£ %
Figure 3
Histogram for Data of Table 3 Control Group
D2 Frequencies
N=IO
568.28
64.76
N=4 N=4
N=I N=I N=I
Figure 4
Histogram for Data of Table 3 Experimental Group
D2 Frequencies
N=IO
N = 72
M = 60:
SD = 46.
xO
0
NO
CN
NO
LO
Tf
Tf
O
m
NO
CN
in
m
m
NO
m
0
NO
NO
CN
NO
m
NO
NO
r-
NO
O
80
I
T able 4
T able of E ffects fo r D2
EFFEC TS
SS
df
ms
F
i 243918.000
7/ 11
57321.777
7
Methods
21461.888
1
21461.888
D ogm atism
4039.222
1
4039.222
1.385
A chievem ent
373.000
1
373.000
0.127
M ethods/
D ogm atism
6927.556
1
6927.556
2.376
D o g m atism /
A chievem ent
6147.555
1
6147.555
2.108
M ethods/
A chievem ent
17047.556
1
17047.556
M ethods/
D o g m atism /
A chievem ent
1325.008
1
1325.008
64
2915.565
TOTAL
C ells
W ithins
!
186596.223
7. 361*
5.847**
0.454
*7. 361/7. 04 is g re a te r than I . 00 a t . 01 confidence lev el, th e re fo re we
can r e je c t hypothesis num ber 2.
**5. 847/3. 99 is g r e a te r than I . 00 a t . 05 confidence lev el, th e re fo re we
can r e je c t hypothesis num ber .5.
81
F ig u re 5
C om parison of Mean S cores for D2 .
M ethods/A chievem ent E ffects
-
M1
C ontrol
G roup
M2
E x p erim en tal
Group
M1
Control
G roup
M2
E x p erim en tal
Group
High
A chievers
High
A chievers
Low
A chievers
Low
A chievers
M=584. 72
M=587. 94
M=551.83
M =617.17
82
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR D3
T able 5 shows the s c o re s d eriv e d fo r D3 (the psychom otor dom ain)
fo r M1 and M 2 .
The idiographic disp lay in F ig u re s 6 and 7 p re s e n ts th is d a t a "
in the fo rm of a h isto g ra m .
M ean fo r
The r e a d e r w ill note th a t w ith an N of 72, the
is 145.14, w hile the M ean fo r M2 is 160. 00.
The Standard D evia­
tio n fo r M1 is 24. 95, w hile the Standard D eviation fo r M2 is 18.02.
T able 6 lis ts the E ffects fo r D3 .
The F fa c to r for M ethods shows
8 .7 6 1 /7 . 04 is g r e a te r than I . 00 a t . 01 confidence lev el, th e re fo re w e can
r e je c t H ypothesis N um ber 3 w hich sta te d " th e re is no d ifferen ce betw een group
m eans fo r stu d en ts in th e tra d itio n a l c la s s and th o se in the e x p erim en tal c la s s
re la tiv e to achieving sp ecified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith th e psychom otor
dom ain. " The F fa c to r for s c o re s of the f ir s t and second o rd e r of in te ra ctio n
give no su fficien t re a s o n fo r re je c tin g H ypotheses N um ber 5 and 6.
83
Table 5
Dg S cores
j -
-High Dogmati
.Low D ogm atic
r-H
I
■
CO
NO
I—I
I
O
CO
1>
CO
Sg-ISd
S9 -132
S1-ISO
S2 -140
S3 -ISd
S4 -144
S5 -184
Sg-128
I>
CO
S1-IdS
S2 -IdS
S3 -IS d
S4 -144
Ss-124
S ^ -Ig g
S7 -128
. Sg-152
S9 -152
S i-184
S2 -144
S3 -IdO
S4 -ISd
S5 -IdO
S6 -144
'
5 1144
52 - ld4
Sg-ITd
54 152
55I92
Sg-ISd
S7 -IS d
Sg-ISd
S9-IdS
S1-IS d
S2 -IdO
Sg-ISd
S4 -148
S5-152
S g -ld 4
S7 -IdS
S g -ld 4
S9 -204
Sg-176
S9 -128
S1-ISO
S2 -ld 4
S3 -IdO
S4 -148
S5 -184
Sg-IdO
. S7 -ITd
S g -ld 4
S9 -144
£
t>
I
'[Tl
%
&
I
i
S1
&
§•
g
.
5 1ISd
52- 104
Sg-140
S^,-144
55 ISd
56 148
57 ITd
Sg-140
S9 -IdS
S1-MO
S2 -IdO ,
Sg-84
:
S4 -188 .
S5 -132
Sg-*)
S7 -IdO
Sg-104 |
S9 - I l d
High A chiever
■
2
M
. E x p erim en tal Group
------------------------ ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
. M
C ontrol Group
Figure 6
Histogram for Data of Table 5 Control Group
Dy Frequencies
N = 72
M = 145.14
SD = 24.95
N= 8
OO
N=I N=I
Os
CO
Os
Os
Os
O
r—I
I
I
I
O
OO
O
Os
O
O
Os
f—i
O
Os
CN
Os
CO
Os
O
I
I
CN
O
co
O
Tp
Os
m
o
m
Os
SO
O
SO
O s
r-.
p—i
i
o
Os
00
Os
OS
Cs
'— I
T— i
CN
I
I
I
rH
rH
CN
o
O O O
O
O OS
o
F ig u re 7
H isto g ram fo r Data of Table 5 E xperim ental G roup
Dg F re q u e n c ie s ^
N = 72
M = 160.00
SD = 18.02
OO
Ul
N=I N=I
O'
CO
O s O
OS
i-H
I
I
O
O
oo
os
I
O
o
i—4
--I
CN
CO
rf
v-H
I
i-H
I
i-H
I
i-H
I
O
O
^4
f—4
—I
CN
O
co
f—t
O
Hf
i- 4
in
O
m
i- 4
r-'
SO
i-H
I
i-H
I
O
so
f —I
—H
I
O
00
Os
i-H
I
i-H
I
O
i—4
oo
t-4
O
ox
i-H
O
CN
I
O
o
CN
86
T able 6
T able of E ffects for Dg
SS
df
TOTAL
, 37197.000
71
Cells
, • 7608.444
EFFEC TS
ms
F
7 '
4050.694
I
4050.694
I
936.472
2.025
88.694
I
88.694
0.191
1285.334
I
1285.334
2.780
275.778
I
275.778
0.596
M ethods/
A chievem ent
842.000
I
842.000
1.821
M ethods/
D o g m a tism /.
A chievem ent
129.472
I
129.472
0.280
. 29588.556
64
462.321
Methods
D ogm atism
A chievem ent
M ethods/
D ogm atism
D o g m atism /
A chievem ent ■■
936.472
I
.
8.761*
I
' W ithins
*8. 761/7. 04 is g r e a te r than I. 00 at .0 1 confidence lev el, th e re fo re we
can r e je c t hypothesis num ber 3.
87
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR Dt
T ab le 7 shows the s c o re s d e riv e d fo r Dt (the com bination of s c o re s
fo r the cognitive, affectiv e, and psycho m otor dom ains) fo r
and M2. The
id io g rap h ic d isp la y in F ig u re s 8 and 9 p re s e n ts th is data in the fo rm of a h is to ­
g ra m .
T h e re a d e r w ill note th a t w ith an N of 72, th e M ean fo r M^ is 964. 33,
w hile the M ean fo r M2 is 1051. 86.
The S tandard D eviation fo r M^ is 134. 97,
w hile the Standard D eviation fo r M2 is 81.24.
T able 8 lis ts th e E ffects fo r Dt .
The F fa c to r fo r M ethods shows
11. 8 2 2 /7 .0 4 is g r e a te r than I . 00 at .0 1 confidence le v el, th e re fo re we can
r e je c t H ypothesis N um ber 4 w hich sta te d "th e re is no d ifferen ce betw een
group m ean s for students in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and th o se in the ex p erim en tal
c la s s r e la tiv e to achieving sp ecified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith the so cial
stu d ie s (the cognitive, affectiv e, and psychom otor dom ains).
The F facto r fo r
the in te ra c tio n betw een Methods and A chievem ent shows 5 .5 3 1 /3 . 99 is g re a te r
than I . 00 a t .01 confidence lev el, th e re fo re we can r e je c t H ypothesis N um ber 5
w hich sta te d " th e re is no d ifferen ce betw een the m ean p e rfo rm an c e of the
individual stu d en ts in each of the two c la s s e s w ith re fe re n c e to th e ir s c o re s on
the A chievem ent Scale of the E dw ards P erso n al P referen ce Schedule.
F ig u re 10
is an id io g rap h ic disp lay com paring m ean s c o re s fo r Dt w hich in d icates that the
m ajor d ifferen c e can be tra c e d to those stu d en ts in M2 who w e re c h a ra c te riz e d
a s "low a c h ie v e rs . "
88
Low D ogm atic '
High Dogmatii
T able 7
Dt S co res
M1
Control Group
-M 2
Experimental Group
S1 -905
S2 -SlO
Sg-827
S i- 9 9 0
S2 -1084
S3 - I l l S
S4 -1077 ,
Sg-1040
S6 -962
S7 - 1070
Sg-973
S9- I l l S
S4 -1041
S5 -940
Sg-1021
S7 - I lM
Sg-985
Sg-1096
.
■
j
S i-9 4 9
S2 -IOSS ,
S3 -642
;
54 I I 67
55 9I 8
S6 -713 .. .
S7 -IOSO ,
S8 -724
:
S9 - 8 I 4
S 1 -IO l 2
S2 -1095
S3 -1042
54 1024
55 989
S6-992
S7 - I l 22
Sg-1066
S9 -1 2 6 l
S1-IOSS
S2 -IOSS
S3 -1 0 7 7
S4 -1 0 2 0
Sg-901
Ss-1216
S7 -870
Sg-953
S9 - 1064
S i-1 1 4 4
S2 -977
Sg-922
S4 -928
S5 -IO I 9
S6 -SlS
S7 -1149
Sg-822
S9 -952
S i-1 0 9 2
S2 -908
S 3 -952
S4 -1007
S5 -IlO 2
S6 -891
S7 -1069
Sg-1112
Sg-884
.
S i-1 1 4 4
S2 -IOSS
S3-IOSO
S4 -1061
S5 - I 209
S6 -IO2O
S7 -IlS d
S8- I l l S
S9-IOS2
I
§d"
I
m'
■$hi
I
>
0
%
ihi
rr1
eg]
g.
I
I
>
•O
£
I
Figure 8
Histogram for Data of Table 7 Control Group
Dt Frequencies
N = 72
M = 964.33
SD = 134.97
N=7
o
o
m
O O
$■
O
OT\
C
O N
§
f—I
m
O N
1201-1250
601-650
N=I N=I
Figure 9
Histogram for Data of Table 7 Experimental Group
Dt Frequencies
N = 72
SD = 81.24
N=I N=I
91
Table 8
Table of E ffects fo r Dt
EFFEC T S
SS
df
ms
•
F
TOTAL
1007169.000
71
Cells
256734.777
7
M ethods
138620.694
I
138620. 694
11.822*
14086.805
I
14086.805
1.201
A chievem ent
1411.361
I
1411.361
M ethods/
D ogm ati sm
25538. 001
I
25538.001
2.177
D ogm atism /
A chievem ent
9149.445
I
9149.445
0.780
M ethods/
A chievem ent
64861.667
I
64861.667
M ethods/
D o gm atism /
A chievem ent
3066.804
I
3066.804
750434.223
64
11725.534
D ogm atism
W ithins
0 .2 0
5.53.1**
0.261
*11. 822/704 is g re a te r than I . 00 a t . 01 confidence lev el, th e re fo re we can
r e je c t hypothesis num ber 4.
* * 5 .5 3 1 /3 .9 9 is g re a te r than 1.00 at .0 1 confidence lev el, th e re fo re we can
r e je c t hypothesis num ber 5.
92
F ig u re 10
C om parison of Mean S co res fo r Dt
M ethods/A chievem ent Effects
M1
Control
G roup
High
A chievers
M=997. 61
M2
E xperim ental
G roup
High
A chievers
M-1024. 78
M1
Control
Group
Low
A chievers
M=931.06
M2
E xperim ental
G roup
Low
A chievers
M=1078. 94
THE t-T E S T FOR STANDARD DEVIATIONS
In light of the p reced in g s ta tis tic a l a n aly sis w hich indicated a s ig ­
nificant d ifferen ce betw een the co n tro l gro u p and the e x p erim en tal group for
a ll four tre a tm e n ts , it w as decided to c a r r y th e a n aly sis one ste p fu rth e r.
In
o rd e r to te s t th e ap p aren t hom ogeniety of the groups in question, a t- t e s t fo r
a d ifferen ce betw een stan d a rd deviations w as conducted fo r each tre a tm e n t.
F ro m F ig u re s I arid 2, the r e a d e r found the follow ing data fo r D ^:
M ean
C ontrol Group
E x p erim en tal Group
267.22
289.30
The t - s c o re fo r the data lis te d above is 2. 37.
Standard D eviation
36.69
24.37
2. 3 7 /2 .3 6 is g re a te r than I . 00
at . 02 confidence level, th e re fo re w e can r e je c t a "no d ifferen c e" hypothesis.
F ro m F ig u re s 3 and 4, the r e a d e r found the follow ing data fo r D g:
Mean
C ontrol G roup
E xp erim en tal G roup
5 68.2 8
602.56
Standard D eviation
64.76 .
4 6 .4 9
The t- s c o r e for the data lis te d above is I . 94, w hich does not give sufficient
re a s o n for the re je c tio n of a "no d iffe re n c e " hypothesis.
1
94
F ro m F ig u re s 6 and 7, th e r e a d e r found the following d ata for D g:
M ean
. C ontrol G roup
E x perim ental G roup
Standard D eviation
145.14
160. 00
24. 95
18.28
The t- s c o r e for the data lis te d above is I . 91, w hich does not give sufficient
re a s o n fo r the re je c tio n of a "no d iffe re n c e " hypothesis..
F ro m F ig u re s 8 and 9, the re a d e r found the following d ata for Dt :
M ean
C ontrol G roup
E x p erim en tal G roup ■
964.33
1051.86
Standard D eviation
134.97
81.24
The t- s c o r e for the data liste d above is 2. 89. . 2. 8 9/2. 62 is g r e a te r than I . 00
a t . 01 confidence lev el, th e re fo re w e can r e je c t a "no d iffe re n c e " hypothesis.
SUMMARY
T his ch ap ter h as s e t fo rth th e p ro c e d u re w h ereb y sev en ty -fo u r
students e n ro lled in a g e n e ra l education c o u rse on ethnic stu d ie s a t E a s te rn
M ontana College w e re random ly assig n ed into two c la s s e s of th ir ty -s ix s tu ­
dents e a c h --th e C ontrol G roup w hich w as su b jected to a tra d itio n a l fa c e -to face in stru c tio n a l m ethod, and the E x p e rim e n ta l Group w hich w as subjected to
an e x p erim en tal individualized in stru c tio n a l m ethod.
Once the two groups
w e re co n stitu ted , the students w e re a d m in iste re d both th e A chievem ent Scale
of the E dw ards P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule and the Rokeach D ogm atism
Scale w hereby they w e re c h a ra c te riz e d as being e ith e r High or Low Dogm atic
95
and e ith e r High o r Low a c h ie v e rs .
Throughout the co u rse of study, th ese
students w e re subjected to a s e r ie s of exam inations and th e ir s c o re s w ere c a l­
culated a cco rd in g to the achievem en t of sp ecified o b je c tiv e s--th e cognitive,
affective, and psychom otor dom ain as w ell a s the com bination of all th re e .
The ch ap ter continues w ith d ata d eriv ed fro m conducting an an aly sis
i
of v a ria n c e on each of the four tre a tm e n ts .
The F fa c to r fo r M ethods fo r each
of th e se tre a tm e n ts shows th a t H ypotheses N um ber I through 4 can be re je c te d
a t . 01 confidence level.
In addition, the F fa c to r for the in te ra c tio n betw een
M ethods and A chievem ent for Dg and D shows th a t H ypothesis N um ber 5 can
be re je c te d a t . 05 and . 01 confidence level re s p e c tiv e ly .
As a follow -up of the a n aly sis of v a ria n ce study, a t - t e s t fo r a
d ifferen ce betw een sta n d a rd deviations w as conducted for a ll four tre a tm e n ts.
The t - sc o re fo r
shows th a t a "no d iffe re n c e " hypothesis can be re je c te d at
. 02 confidence level.
The t -s c o re for Dt shows th at a "no d iffe re n c e ” hypothe­
s is can be re je c te d a t . 01 confidence level.
CHAPTER V
RATIOCINATION
A t the o u tset of th is study we sta te d our in ten tio n to answ er the
q u estion w h e th e r th e re is any significan t d ifferen ce betw een stu d en ts taught by
th e fa c e -to -fa c e in stru c tio n a l m ethod and th o se taught by an individual in s tru c ­
tional p ro g ra m w ith re fe re n c e to th e ir achieving se le c te d o b jectiv es applicable
to a c o u rs e of study dealing w ith ethnic m in o rity g ro u p s, and if th e re is a
d ifferen c e in the achievem ent of the students which can be re la te d to p e rs o n ­
ality v a ria b le s of the students w ith re fe re n c e to s c o re s d e riv e d fro m the
A chievem ent Scale of the Edw ards P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule and the
R okeach D ogm atism Scale.
' STATEM ENT OF THE HYPOTHESES
T he questio n s im p lic it in the statem e n t of the p ro b lem w e re tra n s -,
la te d into s ix hypotheses which w e re then su b jected to sy ste m a tic te stin g p r o ­
c e d u re s.
T he six hypotheses te ste d w e re as follow s:
N ull H ypothesis N um ber I :
T h e re is no significan t d ifferen ce betw een g ro u p m eans for
stu d en ts in th e tra d itio n a l c la s s and those in the ex p erim en tal c la ss
r e la tiv e to 'a c h ie v in g sp ecified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith the cog­
n itiv e dom ain.
97
A ltern ate H ypothesis N um ber I :
T h e re is a sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een group m ean s fo r s tu ­
dents in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and those in the e x p erim en tal c la s s
re la tiv e to achieving sp ecified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith the
cognitive dom ain.
Null H ypothesis N um ber 2:
T h e re is no sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een g ro u p m eans fo r
students, in th e tra d itio n a l c la s s and those in the ex p erim en tal c la s s
re la tiv e to achieving specified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith the
affective dom ain.
A ltern ate H ypothesis N um ber 2:
T h ere is a sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een gro u p m eans fo r s tu ­
dents in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and th o se in the e x p erim en tal c la ss
re la tiv e to achieving specified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith the
affective dom ain.
N ull H ypothesis N um ber 3:
T h e re is no sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een gro u p m eans for
students in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and those in the ex p erim en tal c la s s
re la tiv e to achieving specified objectives a sso c ia te d w ith the
psycho m otor dom ain.
' ,
98
A lte rn a te H ypothesis N um ber 3:
T h e re is a sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een g ro u p m e a n s for
students in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and those in the e x p erim en tal c la s s
re la tiv e to achieving sp ecified objectives a sso c ia te d w ith the
psycho m otor dom ain.
Null H ypothesis N um ber 4:
T h e re is no sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een.group m eans for
students in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and those in the e x p erim en tal c la s s
re la tiv e to achieving sp ecified objectives a sso c ia te d w ith the so c ia l
stu d ies (the com bination of cognitive, affective, and psycho m otor).
:
A ltern ate H ypothesis N um ber 4:
T h e re is a significan t d ifferen ce betw een gro u p m ean s for
students in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and those in the e x p erim en tal c la s s
re la tiv e to achieving specified o b jectiv es a sso c ia te d w ith the so cial
stu d ies (the com bination of cognitive, affective, and psycho m otor).
Null H ypothesis N um ber 5:
T h e re is no sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een the m ean p e rfo rm ­
ance of the individual stu d en ts in each of the two c la s s e s w ith r e f e r ­
ence to th e ir s c o re s on the A chievem ent Scale of the Edw ards
P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule. .
99
• A ltern ate H ypothesis N um ber 5:
T h ere is a sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een th e m ean p e rfo rm ­
ance of the individual stu d en ts in each of th e two c la s s e s w ith r e f e r ­
ence to th e ir s c o re s on the A chievem ent Scale of the Edw ards
P ersonal P re fe re n c e Schedule.
Null H ypothesis N um ber 6:
T h e re is no sig n ifican t d ifferen ce betw een th e m ean p e rfo rm ­
ance of the individual students in each of the two c la s s e s w ith r e f e r ­
ence to th e ir s c o re s on the Rokeach D ogm atism Scale.
A ltern ate H ypothesis N um ber 6:
T h ere is a sig nifican t d ifferen ce betw een the m ean p e rfo rm ­
ance of the individual stu d en ts in each of the two c la s s e s w ith r e f e r ­
ence to th e ir s c o re s on the Rokeach D ogm atism Scale.
GENERAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED
In our e ffo rt to te s t th e se h y p o th eses, eight q uestions w e re ra is e d
w hich the findings of the p reced in g chapter now enable us to an sw er.
Q uestion N um ber I
How do students in the e x p erim en tal group co m p are w ith students
in a control group w ith re fe re n c e to fulfilling the tra d itio n a l o b jec­
tiv e s n o rm ally a sso c ia te d w ith th e cognitive dom ain, i . e . , fa c ts,
concepts, g e n e ra liz a tio n s, th e o rie s , and law s?
100
Answer Number I
F ro m the data p re se n te d in F ig u re s I and 2 w hich w as b ased upon
s c o re s d eriv ed fro m
(s c o re s re la tiv e to th e cognitive dom ain),
it w as shown th a t studen ts in the e x p erim en tal gro u p had a m ean
s c o re of 289.30 a s co m p ared to 267.22 for stu d en ts in the control
group.
In addition, the sta n d a rd deviation of s c o re s fo r students
in the e x p erim en tal group w as 24. 37 as co m p ared to 36. 69 for
students in the control group.
The F fa c to r for Methods shown on
T able 2 gives c re d en c e to the p ro p o sitio n of a "no d ifferen c e"
h y p o th esis.
T hus, the m ean s c o re s and th e sta n d a rd deviation
show th a t students in the e x p erim en tal group achieved hig h er
s c o re s than students in the co n tro l group w ith re fe re n c e to fu lfill­
ing the tra d itio n a l objectives n o rm a lly a sso c ia te d w ith th e cogni­
tiv e dom ain.
Q uestion N um ber 2
How do students in the e x p erim en tal group co m p are w ith students
in a control group w ith re fe re n c e to fulfilling the tra d itio n a l ob­
je c tiv e s "norm ally a sso c ia te d w ith the affective dom ain, i. e . , a tti­
tudes and values?
A nsw er N um ber 2
,
'
F ro m the d ata p re sen te d in F ig u re s 3 and 4 w hich w as b ased .upon
101
sco res, d eriv ed fro m D2 (s c o re s re la tiv e to the affective domain),
it w as shown th at studen ts in the e x p erim en tal g ro u p had a m ean
s c o re of 602.56 a s com pared to 568.28 for stu d en ts in th e control
group.
In addition, the stan d a rd deviation of s c o r e s for students
in the ex p erim en tal group w as 4 6 .4 9 a s co m p ared for students in
the co n tro l group.
The F facto r fo r M ethods shown on Table 4
g iv es cred en ce to the p ro p o sitio n callin g for a re je c tio n of a "no
d iffe re n c e ” h ypothesis.
T hus, th e m ean s c o re s and the stan d ard
deviation show th a t stud en ts in the e x p erim en tal g ro u p achieved
h ig h er s c o re s than studen ts in the co n tro l group w ith re fe re n c e to
fulfilling the tra d itio n a l o b jectiv es n o rm a lly a ss o c ia te d w ith the
affective dom ain.
Q uestion N um ber 3
How do students in th e e x p erim en tal group co m p are w ith students
in a control group w ith re fe re n c e to fulfilling the tra d itio n a l ob­
je c tiv e s n o rm ally a sso c ia te d w ith th e psychom otor dom ain, i . e . ,
s k ills of in quiry, com m unication, r e s o u rc e u se , and group in te r ­
action?
A nsw er N um ber 3
F ro m the d ata p re se n te d in F ig u re s 6 and 7 w hich w as b a se d upon
s c o re s d eriv ed fro m Dg (s c o re s re la tiv e to the psycho m otor
102
dom ain), it w as shown th a t students in the ex p erim en tal group had
a m ean s c o re of 160.00 as com pared to 145.14 fo r students' in the
co n tro l group.
In addition, th e stan d a rd deviation of s c o re s fo r
students in the e x p erim en tal g ro u p w as 18. 02 a s co m pared to 24. 95
fo r students in the co n tro l group.
The F fa c to r fo r Methods shown
on T able 6 gives cred en ce to the p ro p o sitio n calling fo r a re je c tio n
of a "no d iffe re n c e " hy p o th esis.
Thus, the m ean s c o re s and the
stan d a rd deviation show th at students in th e e x p erim en tal group . '
achieved hig h er s c o re s than stu d en ts in the co n tro l group w ith
re fe re n c e to fulfilling th e tra d itio n a l objectives .norm ally a s s o c ­
iated w ith the psycho m otor dom ain.
Q uestion N um ber 4
How do students in the e x p erim en tal group co m p are w ith students
in a control group w ith re fe re n c e to fulfilling the tra d itio n a l ob­
je c tiv e s of the so cial studies? Since the u ltim a te c r ite rio n of the
so c ia l stu d ies is the c h a ra c te r of th e changes b rought about in th e
behavior of the stu d e n ts, the le a r n e r then b eco m es the focal point
for evaluation.
In a s s e s s in g w hat th e se students a re learn in g , all
• of the o b jectives claim ed fo r the so cial stu d ies m u st be taken into
account: cognitive, affective, and psychom otor.
A nsw er N um ber 4
F ro m the d ata p re se n te d in F ig u re s 8 and 9 w hich w as b ased upon
103
s c o re s d eriv ed fro m Dt (sc o re s re la tiv e to the com bination of the
cognitive, affective, and p sychom otor dom ains), it w as shown
th a t students in the e x p erim en tal group had a m ean s c o re of
1051. 86 as com pared to 964.33 fo r students in the co n tro l group.
In addition, the stan d a rd d eviation of s c o re s fo r students in the
ex p erim en tal group w as 81. 24 as com pared to 134. 97 fo r students
in the co n tro l group.
The F fa c to r fo r M ethods shown on Table 8
giv es c re d en c e to the p ro p o sitio n calling for a re je c tio n of a "no
d iffe re n c e " hy p o th esis.
T hus, th e m ean s c o re s and the stan d ard
deviation show th at stud en ts in th e e x p erim en tal group achieved
h ig h e r s c o re s than stud en ts in the co n tro l group w ith re fe re n c e to
. fu lfillin g th e tra d itio n a l o b jectiv es of th e so cial stu d ie s--c o g n itiv e ,
a ffectiv e, and psychom otor.
Q uestion N um ber 5
How do students who exhibit a high dogm atic s c o re on the Rokeach •
D ogm atism Scale com pare w ith stu d en ts who exhibit a low dogm at­
ic s c o re on the RoIteach D ogm atism Scale w ith re fe re n c e to the
two in stru c tio n a l tre a tm e n ts?
A nsw er N um ber 5
Tlie d ata re p o rte d in the p reced in g ch ap ter re v e a ls no significant
d ifferen c e ex isted betw een stu d en ts in e ith e r gro u p w ith re fe re n c e
to a ll four tre a tm e n ts re la tiv e to s c o re s d e riv e d fro m the Rokeach
104
D ogm atism Scale.
Question Number 6
How do students who exhibit a high lev el of ach iev em en t on the
Edw ards P e rso n a l P refere n c e Schedule com pare w ith students who
exhibit a low level of achievem ent on the E dw ards P erso n al P r e f e r­
ence Schedule w ith re fe re n c e to the two in stru c tio n a l tre a tm e n ts?
A nsw er Number- 6
-
F ro m the data p re se n te d in T ab les 4 and 8 w hich w as b ased upon
I
•scores d e riv e d fro m D and D re s p e c tiv e ly , it w as shown th at th e •
:
■
t
F fa c to r for the in te ra c tio n betw een Methods and A chievem ent
I
giv es cred en ce to the p ro p o sitio n calling fo r a re je c tio n of a "no
d iffe re n c e " hy p o th esis.
In addition, th e data displayed in F ig u re 5
shows th at stu d en ts in the ex p erim en tal group c h a ra c te riz e d as
high a ch ie v e rs had a m ean s c o re of 587. 94 as co m p ared to 584. 72
for students in th e control group c h a ra c te riz e d a s high a ch ie v e rs
fo r Dg.
F ig u re 5 a lso shows th a t students in th e ex p erim en tal
group c h a ra c te riz e d as low a ch ie v e rs had a m ean s c o re of 617.17
as com pared to 551. 83 fo r stu d en ts in th e control group c h a r a c te r­
ized a s low a ch ie v e rs fo r D^.
The d ata displayed in F ig u re 10
shows th a t stu d en ts in th e e x p erim en tal group c h a ra c te riz e d as
high a c h ie v e rs had a m ean s c o re of 1024. 78 as com pared to 997. 61
for students in the control group c h a ra c te riz e d a s high a ch ie v e rs
105
for Dt .
F ig u re 10 a lso shows th a t stu d en ts in the ex p erim en tal
group c h a ra c te riz e d a s low a c h ie v e rs had a m ean s c o re of 1078. 94
a s com pared to 931. 06 fo r students in the co n tro l gro u p c h a r a c te r­
ized a s low a c h ie v e rs fo r Dt .
Thus, th e m ean s c o re s show that
students in the e x p erim en tal gro u p achieved h ig h er s c o re s than
students in the control group fo r D^ and Dt w ith re fe re n c e to th e ir
s c o re s on the A chievem ent Scale of the Edw ards P erso n al P r e f e r­
ence Schedule w ith the g re a te r d ifferen ce being found in those
c h a ra c te riz e d as low a c h ie v e rs.
Q uestion N um ber 7
How do students who exhibit a high dogm atic s c o re on the Rokeach
D ogm atism Scale and a high le v el of achievem ent on the Edw ards
P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule co m p are w ith stu d en ts who exhibit
a low dogm atic s c o re on the R okeach D ogm atism Scale and a high
lev el of achievem ent on th e.E d w ard s P erso n al P re fe re n c e Schedule
w ith re fe re n c e to the two in stru c tio n a l tre a tm e n ts?
A nsw er N um ber 7
The d a ta re p o rte d in the p reced in g chapter re v e a ls no significant
differen ce e x isted betw een stu d en ts in e ith e r gro u p w ith re fe re n c e
to all four tre a tm e n ts re la tiv e to the second o rd e r of in te ra c tio n ,
betw een m ethods, dogm atism , and achievem ent.
106
Question Number 8
How do stu d en ts who exhibited a high dogm atic s c o re on the Rokeach D ogm atism Scale and a low le v el of achievem ent on the
E dw ards P erso n al P refere n c e Schedule co m p are w ith students who
exhibit a low dogm atic s c o re on th e Rokeach D ogm atism Scale and
a low level of achievem en t on the Edw ards P erso n al P referen ce
Schedule w ith re fe re n c e to the two in stru c tio n a l tre a tm e n ts?
A nsw er N um ber 8
The data re p o rte d in the p reced in g chapter re v e a ls no significant
d ifferen ce e x isted betw een stu d en ts in e ith e r gro u p w ith re fe re n c e
to a ll four tre a tm e n ts r e la tiv e to the second o rd e r of in te ra ctio n
betw een m ethods, dogm atism , and achievem ent.
• ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
In an e ffo rt to m ake a c o m p ariso n betw een the tra d itio n a l fa c e -to face in stru c tio n a l m ethod and an individualized in stru c tio n a l m ethod re la tiv e
to achieving sp ecified o bjectives n o rm ally a sso c ia te d w ith the so c ia l stu d ies,
this e x p e rim e n te r random ly sele c ted two g ro u p s fro m the sam e population,
su b jected one group to the tra d itio n a l method and the oth er gro u p to the e x p e ri­
m ental m ethod, and com pared the p e rfo rm an c e of the two g roups w ith a d is ­
tin c tio n being m ade to c e rta in p e rso n ality v a ria b le s of th e stu d en ts w ithin each
107
group.
An a n a ly sis of v a ria n c e w as conducted fo r s c o re s d e riv e d on four
tre a tm e n ts and a t - t e s t w as conducted to d e term in e a d ifferen ce betw een sta n d ­
a rd d e v iatio n s.
The F facto r for group m ean s fo r each of the fo u r tre a tm e n ts
re la tiv e to the two m ethods gives cred en ce to the p ro p o sitio n th a t the "no d if­
fe re n c e ” H ypotheses N um ber I through. 4 can be re je c te d at .0 1 confidence
le v el.
F u r th e r support to th is assu m p tio n can be found in the t- t e s t for
and
Dt w hich giv es cred en ce to th e.p ro p o sitio n th a t th e "no d iffe re n c e ” H ypotheses
N um ber I and 4 can be re je c te d a t . 02 and . 01 confidence lev el re sp e c tiv e ly .
T h e re fo re , this r e s e a r c h e r r e je c ts H ypotheses N um ber I through 4 and accep ts
A lte rn a te H ypotheses N um ber I through 4 w hich state "th ere is a significant
d ifferen c e betw een g ro u p m eans for students in the tra d itio n a l c la s s and those
in the e x p erim en tal c la ss re la tiv e to achieving sp ecified o b je ctiv es" be they
a ss o c ia te d w ith the cognitive dom ain (A ltern ate H ypothesis N um ber I), the
affective dom ain (A lternate H ypothesis N um ber 2), the psychom otor dom ain
(A ltern ate H ypothesis N um ber 3), o r the com bination of cognitive, affective,
and psychom otor dom ains (A lternate H ypothesis N um ber 4).
T here, is a d if­
fe re n c e and th at d ifferen ce is c le a rly see n in the higher p e rfo rm an c e level of
th o se students assig n ed to the e x p erim en tal group.
In addition, the F fa c to r fo r group m eans for Dg and D^ re la tiv e to '
the in te ra c tio n betw een M ethods and A chievem ent gives c re d en c e to the p ro p o s­
ition th a t th e "no d iffe re n c e " Hypothesis.N u m b e r 5 can be re je c te d a t . 05
-confidence le v el.
T h e re fo re th is r e s e a r c h e r r e je c ts H ypothesis N um ber 5 and
acc e p ts A ltern ate H ypothesis N um b er-5 w hich s ta te s "th ere is a significant
d ifferen ce betw een the m ean p e rfo rm an c e of the individual stu d en ts in each of
the two c la s s e s w ith re fe re n c e to th e ir s c o re s on the A chievem ent Scale of the
E dw ards P ersonal P refere n c e Schedule.
T h e re is a d ifferen ce and th a t d iffe r­
ence is c le a rly se e n in the h ig h e r p e rfo rm a n c e lev el of th o se stu d en ts c h a ra c ­
te riz e d as "low a c h ie v e rs " assig n ed to the e x p erim en tal group.
The r e s e a r c h ­
e r finds no evidence for re je c tin g H ypothesis N um ber 6 w hich s ta te s "th ere is
no sig nificant d ifferen ce betw een th e m ean p e rfo rm an c e of the individual s tu ­
dents in each of th e two c la s s e s w ith re fe re n c e to th e ir s c o re s on the Rokeach
I
D ogm atism S cale.
;
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
At the ou tset of th is d is s e rta tio n it w as suggested th a t teaching
m ethods, be it the tim e -h o n o red tra d itio n a l fa c e -to -fa c e in s tru c tio n or the
la tte r-d a y innovative individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ram , stand in need of e m p iri­
c al support, w ith the u ltim ate c r ite r ia fo r effectiv en ess being not only m e a ­
s u re d w ith re fe re n c e to the accum ulation of knowledge and the developm ent of
d e sira b le attitu d es and s k ills , but w ith re g a rd to c e rta in
individual p erso n ality
d iffe re n c e s. Tlius this r e s e a r c h e r in itia te d and brought to fru itio n this study c o m ­
p arin g two such m ethods of teaching a so cia l stu d ies c o u rse a t the college lev el.
109
The intention w as c le a r: to d isco v e r an effective teach in g m ethod which fa c ili­
ta te s effective le a rn in g in the so cial stu d ie s.
F ro m the su rv ey of lite ra tu re rev iew ed in C hapter II, it w as found
th a t s u b je c t-m a tte r content can be taught (to p ro p e rly m otivated students) by
any te ac h in g technique, including individual in stru c tio n .
At the sa m e tim e we
found th a t educational goals beyond content re q u ire carefu lly co n sid ered te a c h ­
ing m ethods.
Since the com plex of g o als and objectives for th e so cia l stu d ies
fa r exceed the m e re a cq u isitio n of knowledge but include the developm ent of
p ro b le m -so lv in g s k ills and d e sira b le a ttitu d e s, th is r e s e a r c h e r w as provoked
to analyze individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ram m in g as a re a so n a b le a lte rn a tiv e to
th e tra d itio n a l fa c e -to -fa c e in stru c tio n a l m ethod of teaching.
The desig n p ro ­
c e s s fo r the individual in stru c tio n a l sy ste m began w ith the sp ecificatio n of
in stru c tio n a l objectives in b e h av io ral o r m e a su ra b le te rm s .
T his w as followed
by th e optim al sequencing of co u rse content and the definition of re le v a n t c r i ­
te rio n -r e f e re n c e d m e a su re s of achievem ent.
T hese w e re a ll com bined in an
e m p iric a l m anner to produce a viable and efficien t learn in g sy ste m .
This
p re s e n t study h as shown th at the s y s te m 's p ro v en capability of producing
m e a su ra b le le arn in g achievem ent is its h a llm a rk .
The im p licatio n s of th is study a re leg io n and the follow ing lis t
should not be co n stru ed as being d efin itiv e, only suggestive.
Implication Number I
Even the casu a l o b s e rv e r of the co n tem p o rary educational scene is
aw are th a t a new in stru c tio n a l technology and an e m p iric a lly -b a se d
scien ce of pedagogy a re in the p ro c e s s of em erg in g .
T his p re se n t
study shows th a t a r e s e a rc h -b a s e d approach to in stru c tio n s tre s s in g
. student le arn in g (a le a rn in g -o rie n te d sy ste m of in stru ctio n ) can be
developed, im plem ented, and evaluated.
Im plication N um ber 2
An individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ra m can provide a w ay of in c o rp o r­
ating and in te g ra tin g educational and psychological p rin c ip le s into
a uniform sy ste m .
The ap p ro ach is , to be s u re , e c le c tic .
It is
p a rtia lly Skinnerian, it is highly cognitive, and it esp o u se s m odel­
ing concepts.
It begins w ith p ro b le m s.
It ask s for c la rific a tio n of
the in stru c tio n a l p roblem s and sp ec ific a tio n of g o a ls, p u rp o se s,
outcom es, and o b jectiv es.
Then, m o st im p o rtan tly , it dem ands a
su rv ey of known o r availab le th e o re tic a l p rin c ip le s, m ethods,
m a te ria ls , o r approaches and a sele c tio n of th e se to achieve the
g o als.
As a r e s u lt, the co n trib u tio n s may com e fro m divergent
th e o re tic a l po sitio n s.
While the th e o re tic a l underpinnings of such
a p ro g ra m a r e draw n e c le c tic a lly , it is n e v e rth e le ss an in te g ra te d ,
co n siste n t w hole.
I ll
Implication Number 3
The te a c h e r who opts to make the c ru c ia l change to th e individual­
ized approach to in stru c tio n w ill find a new d im ension added to h is
p ro fessio n al a c tiv itie s.
Since the individual te a c h e r is potentially
the m ost se n sitiv e , flex ib le, and d iv erg en tly re sp o n siv e component
I
of any in stru c tio n a l sy ste m , th e new th ru s t and p u rp o se re a liz e d
through the u tiliz a tio n of an individualized in stru c tio n a l p ro g ram
m ay r e s u lt in a renew ed e n th u siasm and a re s to ra tio n of the en jo y ­
m ent of teaching w hich is a ll-to o -o fte n d issip a te d in th e face of
m any conventional teach in g m ethods.
U tilizing individual in s tru c -
I
tio n al p ro g ram m in g , the te a c h e r m ay find tim e to do w hat te a c h e rs
can do b e st: diagnose individual le a r n e r 's d ifficu lties; in te ra c t
w ith le a r n e r s w hen they need help on a o n e-to -o n e b a s is ; in sp ire
and m otivate; and identify and encourage c re a tiv ity and se lfd ire c tio n .
Im plication N um ber 4 .
When the goals of higher education and in stitu tio n al a n d /o r course
objectives include attitu d in al changes as w ell as m ore obvious
cognitive g o als, te a c h e rs can im prove the effectiv en ess of th e ir
in stru c tio n by a rra n g in g c o u rse a c tiv itie s into s h o rt segm ents ,
through w hich le a r n e r s can p ro ceed at th e ir own pace, by
112
m onitoring the achievem ent of le a r n e r s a fte r com pletion of in d i­
vidual segm ents of a c o u rse , and by re v is in g in stru c tio n a l seg ■ m ents u n til the d e s ire d le v el of achievem ent is a tta in ed by the
le a r n e r s .
This p re s e n t study w hich co m p ares the individualized
in stru c tio n a l method (which included a ll th e aforem entioned c h a r­
a c te ris tic s ) w ith the tra d itio n a l fa c e -to -fa c e m ethod, shows that
students did a tta in hig h er le v e ls of achievem ent w ith re fe re n c e
to a ll goal c a te g o rie s by p a rtic ip a tin g in th e individual in stru c tio n a l
p ro g ram .
Im p licatio n N um ber 5
The one. c h a r a c te ris tic of a m otivated te a c h e r is th a t he can resp o n d
to feedback fro m his students so as to achieve b e tte r and b e tte r
approxim ations to optim al solutions to the p ro b lem s of teaching.
As additional inform atio n fro m r e s e a r c h accu m u lates, a s b e tte r
conceptualizations e m e rg e , he should be able to do an even b e tte r
. job.
T his p re s e n t study shows th a t one m ight a c c e p t w ith som e
m odicum of a ss u ra n c e , th a t individualized in s tru c tio n is su p erio r
to tra d itio n a l fo rm s of teaching w ith re fe re n c e to th e achievem ent
of objectives n o rm ally a sso c ia te d w ith the so cial s tu d ie s.
It also
shows th a t students who m ight be c h a ra c te riz e d a s "low a c h ie v e rs",
m ight find individual in stru c tio n a l p ro g ram m in g an avenue into
113
in c re a se d le v e ls of p e rfo rm an c e.
If educational go als beyond
content re q u ire , c arefu lly co n sid e re d teaching m ethods, even m o re
atten tio n should be given w ith re fe re n c e to the p e rso n a lity v a ria b le s
I
w ithin the student population.
T h ere is nothing s ta tic about e ith e r the p u rp o ses o r the m ethods of
education, thus the study of th e o ry and p ra c tic e m ust continue.. Specifically,
th is study m ight be re p lic a te d to d eterm in e the d eg ree to w hich th e individual
in stru c tio n a l m ethod b rin g s about sig n ifican t, d e sira b le changes in the student
I
in c e rta in p e rso n a lity v a ria b le s , such as in c re a sin g the stu d e n t's in tern al
o rie n ta tio n w ith locus of control (using the R o tter In te rn a l-E x te rn a l Locus of
i
C ontrol Scale), in c re a sin g the stu d e n t's to le ra n c e of am biguity (using the
M acDonald R evised Scale of Ambiguity T o leran ce), and lo w erin g the stu d en t's
m an ifest anxiety (using the R evised F o rm of T a y lo r's M anifest Anxiety).
M o re­
o v er, re la te d is s u e s which re q u ire fu rth e r r e s e a r c h c la rific a tio n not ob serv ed
in th is study include c re a tiv ity , im provem ent in study h a b its, m otivation, and
grow th in acceptance of re sp o n sib ility .
The d is s e rta tio n is finished but the need to study is by no m eans
concluded.
When an educator is no lo n g er concerned w ith th e b a sic intents and
pu rp o ses of education, he c e a se s to be an ed u cato r ; w hen one no longer is
concerned w ith the continual evaluation of his own m ethods in lig h t of changing
.
n eed s, he c e a s e s to be a te a c h e r.
-
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE'
T his schedule c o n sists of a num ber of p a irs of statem e n ts about things that you
m ay o r m ay not lik e: about w ays in w hich you m ay o r may not feel. Look at
th e exam ple below.
a) I like to ta lk about m y self to o th e rs
b) I like to w ork tow ards som e goal th at I have s e t for m yself
Which of th e se two statem e n ts is m o re c h a ra c te ris tic of w hat you like? If you
lik e "to ta lk about y o u rs e lf to o th e rs : m o re than you lik e "w orking tow ards
som e goal th a t you have set fo r y o u rse lf" th en you should choose.a) over b).
■If you lik e "w orking tow ards som e goal th a t you set for y o u rs e lf" m ore than
you like "talking about y o u rs e lf to o th e rs " th en you should choose b) over a).
Your choice should be in te rm s of w hat you like at the p re s e n t tim e and not in
te rm s of w hat you think you should lik e. T his is not a te s t. T liere a re no
rig h t and w rong a n sw e rs. Your choices should be a d e sc rip tio n of your own
p e rso n a l lik e s . Make a choice for e v ery p a ir of sta te m e n ts; . do not skip any.
Indicate, your choice in th e .le ft m arg in acco rd in g to w hat you lik e.
I . _____
a) I lik e to find out w hat g re a t m en have thought about v ario u s
p ro b lem s in Which I am in te re ste d .
' b) I w ould lik e to. accom plish som ething of g re a t sig n ifican ce.
'
2. _____
a) Any w ritte n w o rk th a t I do I lik e to have p re c is e , n eat and
w e ll-o rg a n iz ed .
b) I would lik e to .be a re co g n ized au th o rity in som e job, p ro fessio n ,
o r field of sp ecia liz atio n .
3. _____
a) I like to te ll am using s to rie s and jokes at p a rtie s .
b) I would like to w rite a g re a t novel o r play.
. .
116
4.
a) I lik e to be able to com e and go a s I want to.
b) I lik e to be able to say th a t I have done a d ifficu lt job w ell.
5.
a) I like to solve puzzles and p ro b lem s th at o th er people have
difficulty w ith.
b) I lik e to follow in stru c tio n s and do w hat is expected of me.
6.
a) I would like to be a rec o g n ize d au th o rity in som e job, p ro fessio n ,
or field of sp ec ia liz atio n .
b) I like to have my w o rk org an ized and planned b e fo re beginning
it.
,
I
7.
a) I lik e to be able to do things b e tte r than other people can.
.b) I lik e to te ll am using s to rie s and jokes at p a rtie s .
‘
8.
a) I like to acco m p lish ta sk s that o th e rs reco g n ize a s re q u irin g
sk ill and effo rt.
b) I 'lik e to be able to come and go as I w ant to.
9.
a) I like to be su cc e ssfu l in things undertaken.
b) I lik e to fo rm new fu n ctio n s.
10 .
a) I lik e to solve puzzles o r p ro b le m s that other people have
difficulty w ith.
b) I lik e to judge people by why they do so m eth in g --n o t by w hat
they actually do.
11.
a) I lik e to accom plish ta s k s th a t o th e rs re co g n ize a s re q u irin g
sk ill and effo rt.
b) I like my frie n d s to en courage m e when I m eet w ith fa ilu re .
117
1 2 ,._____
a) I would lik e to w rite a g re a t novel o r play,
b) When se rv in g on a com m ittee, I like to be appointed or elected
chairm an.
13. _____
a) I would lik e to be a reco g n ized au th o rity in som e job, p ro fessio n
o r field of sp ec ia liz atio n .
b) I feel guilty w henever I have done som ething I know is w rong.
14.
a) I like to do my v e ry b e st in w h atev er I u n d ertak e.
b) I lik e to help o th er people who a re le s s fo rtu n ate than I.
15. ______
a) I lik e to be able to do things b e tte r than o th er people can.
b) I like to eat in new and stra n g e re s ta u r a n ts .
16. _____
a) I lik e to be able to say th a t I have done a d ifficu lt job w ell.
b) I like to w ork h a rd at any job I u n d ertak e.
17. _____
a) I would like to accom p lish som ething of g re a t sig n ifican ce.
b) I lik e to k is s .a ttra c tiv e p e rso n s of the opposite sex.
18. _____
a) I would like to w rite a g re a t novel or play.
b) I like to atta ck points of view th at a re c o n tra ry to m ine.
19. _____
a) I like to be loyal to my frie n d s.
b) I like to do my v e ry b e st in w h atev er I u n d ertak e.
20. _____
a) I lik e to o b serv e how an o th er individual fe e ls in a given situation.
b) I lik e to be able to say th a t I have done a d ifficu lt job w ell.
/
a) I like my frie n d s to encourage me. when I m eet w ith fa ilu re .
b) I lik e to be su cc e ssfu l in things undertaken.
a) I like to be one of the le a d e rs in the p ro g ram s in groups to
w hich I belong.
b) I like to be able to do things b e tte r than o th er people c a n ..
a) Wlien things go w rong fo r m e I feel th at I am m o re to blam e
than anyone e lse .
b) I like to solve puzzles and p ro b lem s th at o th e r people have
difficulty w ith.
a) I lik e to h elp my frien d s w hen they a re in tro u b le.
b) I like to do my v e ry b e s t in w h atev er I u n d ertak e.
a) I like to tra v e l and see the country. '
b) I like to accom plish ta sk s th a t o th e rs re co g n ize as re q u irin g
sk ill and effo rt.
a) I like to w o rk h a rd at any job I undertake.
b) I do not like to accom p lish som ething of g re a t significance.
a) I like to go out w ith a ttra c tiv e p e rso n s of the opposite sex.
b) I lik e to be su cc e ssfu l in things undertaken.
a) I lik e to re a d new spaper accounts of m u rd e rs and o th er fo rm s
of violence.
b) I would like to w rite a g re a t novel o r play.
APPENDIX B
THE DOGMATISM SCALE
The follow ing is a study of w hat the g e n e ra l public thinks and fe e ls about a
num ber of im p o rta n t so cia l and p e rso n al q u estio n s. The b e st an sw er to each
s ta te m e n t below is your p e rso n a l opinion. M ark each sta te m e n t in the left
m a rg in a cc o rd in g to how much you a g re e or d is a g re e w ith it. Please m ark
e v e ry one. W rite +1, +2, +3, or - I , -2, -3, depending on how you feel in
each c a s e .
+1:
+2:
+3:
I a g re e a little
I a g re e on the whole
I a g re e v e ry m uch •
- I : I d is a g re e a little
-2 : I d isa g re e on the whole
- 3 : 1 d is a g re e v e ry much
_____ I .
T he p rin c ip le s I have com e to b eliev e in a re quite d ifferen t from
th o se b elieved in by m ost people.
_____ 2.
Even though freed o m of sp eech fo r all g ro u p s is a w orthw hile goal,
i t is unfortunately n e c e s s a ry to r e s t r i c t the freed o m of c e rta in
p o litic a l g roups.
_____ 3.
E ven though I have a lo t of faith in the intelligence and w isdom of
th e com m on m an I m ust say th at th e m a ss e s behave stupidly at
tim e s .
_____ 4.
M an on h is own is a h e lp le ss and m ise ra b le c re a tu re .
_____ 5.
M ost people ju s t d on't give a "dam n" fo r o th e rs.
_____ 6.
It is only n a tu ra l fo r a p e rso n to be r a th e r fe a rfu l of the fu tu re.
_____ 7.
O nce I get wound up in a h eated d isc u ssio n I ju s t c a n 't stop.
'
8. ’ It is b e tte r to be a dead h e ro than to be a liv e cow ard.
_____ 9.
My h a rd e s t b a ttle s a re w ith m yself.
_____ 10.
A t tim e s I think I am no good at all.
_____ 11.
T he m ain thing in life is fo r a p e rso n to want to do som ething
im p o rtan t. '
120
12.
If given a chance I would do som ething of g re a t b enefit for the w orld.
13.
I am s u re I am being talk ed about. .
14.
People say insulting and vulgar things about m e.
15.
T h e re a re a num ber of people I have com e to h ate b ecau se of things
they, stand fo r.
16.
A m an who does not believ e in som e g re a t cau se has not re a lly lived.
17.
A p e rs o n who g e ts e n th u sia stic about too many c au ses is likely to be
a p re tty w ishy-w ashy s o r t of p erso n .
18.
When it com es to d ifferen c es of opinion in re lig io n w e m u st be c a r e ­
ful not to co m p ro m ise w ith th o se who believe d ifferen tly fro m the
w ay w e do.
19.
In tim e s lik e th e se , a p e rso n m u st be p re tty se lfish if he co n sid ers
p rim a rily h is own h appin ess.
i
-
.
20.
To co m p ro m ise w ith our opponents is to be guilty of appeasem ent.
21.
A group which to le ra te s too m uch d ifferen ce of opinion among its
own m em b ers cannot e x ist fo r long,
22. -I so m etim es have a tendency to be too c ritic a l of the id eas of o th e rs.
23.
In the long ru n the b e st w ay to liv e is to pick frien d s and a sso c ia te s
w hose ta s te s and b eliefs a re the sam e a s o n e's own.
24.
M ost people ju st don't know w h a t's good fo r them .
25.
It is so m etim es n e c e s sa ry to r e s o r t to fo rce to advance an ideal one
stro n g ly b e liev es in.
26.
T h e re a re two kinds of.people in th is w o rld : th o se who a re fo r the
tru th and those who a re a g ain st the tru th .
27.
My blood boils w henever a p e rso n stubbornly re fu s e s to adm it h e 's
w ro n g ..
121
28.
A p e rso n who thinks p rim a rily of his own h appiness is beneath
contem pt.
29.
M ost of the ideas w hich g et p rin te d now adays a r e n 't w o rth the p ap er
they a re p rin ted on.
30.
In tliis com plicated w orld of o u rs the only way we can know w h a t's
going on is to r e ly on le a d e rs o r e x p e rts who can be tru s te d .
31.
It is often d e sira b le to r e s e r v e judgem ent about w h a t's going on until
one h as had a chance to h e a r th e opinions of th o se one re s p e c ts .
32.
The p re s e n t is a ll too often full of unhappiness.
th a t counts.
It is only the fu tu re
33. - If a m an is to accom plish h is m issio n in life it is so m etim es n e c e s ­
s a ry to gam ble "all or nothing at all. "
34.
U nfortunately, a good m any people w ith whom I have d isc u sse d im ­
p o rta n t so cial and m o ra l p ro b lem s d o n 't re a lly u n d erstan d w h at's
going on.
35.
The w o rs t c rim e a p e rso n could com m it is to a ttack publicly the
people who b eliev e in the sam e th in g he does.
36.
In tim e s like th e se it is often n e c e s s a ry to be m o re on g u ard ag ain st
id eas put out by people or groups in .o n e ’s own cam p than by th o se in
the opposing cam p.
37.
It is only w hen a p e rso n devotes h im se lf to an ideal o r a cau se that
life becom es m eaningful.
38.
/
In a d isc u ssio n I often find it n e c e s s a ry to re p e a t m y self se v e ra l
tim e s to m ake s u re I am being understood. '
39.
In a heated d isc u ssio n I g e n e ra lly becom e so a b so rb ed in w hat I am
going to say th a t I fo rg et to lis te n to w hat the o th e rs a re saying.
40.
Of a ll th e d ifferen t philosophies which e x ist in th is w o rld th e re is
probably only one w hich is c o rre c t.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A dorno, T . W ., e t. a l . , The A u d io rita ria n P erso n ality (New Y ork: H a rp e rs,
1950).
Bean, A lvin T r n e tt, "Some C om parisons Between Conventional College T e a ch ­
ing M ethods and a C om posite of P ro ce d u re s Involving L arg e L e c tu re G roups,
S e m in a rs, and Reduced C lass T im e" (unpublished d is se rta tio n , N orth T exas
State U n iv ersity , 1969).
Bechtel, Leland P eterm an , "C om parative E ffects of D ifferen tiated Teaching
Methods on C ertain P erso n ality C h a ra c te ris tic s of College Students: The
E ffect of th e T ra d itio n a l A pproach to T eaching Psychology a s C om pared to an
In te rp e rs o n a l A pproach to T eaching Psychology upon B eliefs, A ttitudes, V alues
and A djustm ents of College Students in a c o u rse in g e n eral Psychology" (un- .
published d is s e rta tio n , New Y ork U n iv ersity , 1963).
B erg er, E. M ., "The R elation Between E x p re sse d A cceptance of Self and Ex­
p re s s e d A cceptance of O th e rs, " Journal of A bnorm al and Social Psychology,
N um ber 47 (1952).
B uros, O sc a r K ., e d ., Seventh M ental M easu rem en ts Y earbook, Vol. I
(Highland P ark, N. J. : The G ryphon P re s s , 1972).
Dubin, R o b ert, and Taveggia, Thom as C ., The T e a ch in g -L earn in g Paradox
(Eugene, O regon: U n iversity of O regon P re s s , 1968).
E dw ards, A. L ., E dw ards P ersonal P refere n c e Schedule (New Y ork: Psycho­
lo g ical C orporation, 1957).
E stvan, F ra n k J . , Social Studies in a Changing W orld: C u rricu lu m and In s tru c ­
tio n (New Y ork: H a rc o u rt, B race and W orld, I n c ., 1968).
Flynn, John T om bs, "The Influence of P ro g ram m ed In stru c tio n upon Learning
in E ducational Psychology" (unpublished d is s e rta tio n , Indiana U niversity, 1963).
F rem o n t, H e rb e rt J . , "Individualized In stru c tio n in Plane G eom etry: A Com ­
p a riso n of th e R elative E ffectiv en ess of L earn in g Plane G eom etry by an Indi- .
vidualized A pproach as C o n trasted w ith th e T ra d itio n a l A pproach of Group
In stru c tio n " (unpublished d is s e rta tio n , New Y ork U niversity, 1963).
F o d o r, John T heodore, "A C om parative Study of Two A pproaches to Health
In stru c tio n at the College L e v e l” (unpublished d is s e rta tio n . U niversity of
C alifornia, Los A ngeles, 1963).
Hathaway, S. R. and McBCinely, J. C ., The M innesota M ultiphasic P ersonality
Inventory (New York: Psychological C orporation, 1943).
H enry, N elson B ., e d ., Individualizing In stru c tio n (Chicago: U niversity of
Chicago P r e s s , 1962).
H offer, E ric , The T ru e B eliever (New Y ork: H a rp e rs, 1951).
Johnson, Donald W illiam , "A Study of th e C om parative E ffectiv en ess of P ro ­
g ram m ed S e lf-In stru c tio n V ersu s the D e m o n stra tio n -L a b o ra to ry Method in
T eaching the O peration of S ix Types of A udiovisual E quipm ent” (unpublished
d is s e rta tio n . U niversity of C olorado, 1964).
Lange, Phil C ., P rogram m ed In stru c tio n (C hicago: U n iv ersity of C h icag o .
P re s s , 1962).
L um sdaine, A. A ., e d . , Student R esponse in P ro g ram m ed In stru c tio n (W ash­
ington: N ational A cadem y of Sciences - -N ational R ese arch Council, 1961).
M cK eachie, W. J . , "Psychology a t Age 75: The Psychology T e a c h e r Comes Into
His Own, " A d d ress p re se n te d b efo re the D ivision on T eaching of Psychology at
the A m erican Psychological A ssociatio n , S eptem ber 2, 1967.
M cKeachie, W. J . , T eaching T ips (W ashington: D. C. Heath and Company,
1969).
M ill, John S tu art, A S ystem of Logic (New Y ork: H arp er and B ro th ers, I n c .,
1873).
M otsinger, H illery M elton, "A C om parison of Two Methods of T eaching A m e r­
ic a n H isto ry at the College L ev el” (unpublished d is se rta tio n . N orth T exas
State U niversity, 1969).
Powell, J. P . , "E xperim entation and T eaching in Higher Education, ” E duca­
tional R ese a rc h , 6, (1964).
Rokeach, M ilton, The Open and C losed Mind (New Y ork: Basic Books, I n c .,
1960).
124
Schram m , W ilbur, P rogram m ed Iu stru c tio u --T o d a y and Tom orrow (New York:
Tlie Fund fo r the A dvancem ent of Education, 1962).
Sim pson, G eorge E. and Y inger, J. M ilton, R acial and C u ltu ral M inorities
(New Y ork: H a rp e r and B ro th e rs, 1958).
Sm ith, N orm an H ankele, "The T eaching of E lem en tary S ta tistic s by the Con­
ventional C lassro o m Method of In stru c tio n V ersu s the Method of Program m ed
In stru c tio n " (unpublished d is s e rta tio n . U n iv ersity of C olorado, 1963).
I
Thom son, Scott Dayton, "An A nalysis of A chievem ent O utcom es: Team
T eaching and T ra d itio n a l C la ss e s " (unpublished d is se rta tio n , Stanford U niver­
sity , 1963).
Tliorndike, R obert L. and H agen, E lizab eth , "A dvantages and D isadvantages
of E ssay T e s ts , ” M easu rem en t and E valuation in Psychology and Education
(New Y ork: John Wiley and Sons, I n c ., 1961).
T r o tte r, R obert Sydney, "A Study of Student A chievem ent and A ttitude U til­
izing Two Methods of T eaching the A m erican G overnm ent C ourse in a M etro­
p olitan Junior C ollege" (unpublished d is s e rta tio n , 1969).
Tuckm an, Bruce W ., Conducting Educational R ese arch (New Y ork: H arco u rt
B race Jovanovich, I n c ., 1972).
V ander W al,' Judson M arc, "The R elatio n sh ip s Between Two M ethods of
T eaching College Biology in A chievem ent and A ttitude" (unpublished d is s e r ta ­
tion, W estern M ichigan U n iv ersity , 1972).
W ales, C h arles E. and S tag er, R obert A ., "The Effects of a Guided Design
C ourse P a tte rn on Student P ersonality V a ria b le s, " p re p a re d fo r the Exxon
E ducation Foundation Im pact P ro g ram (m im eographed, n. d . ). .
W ardian, Jeanne F o s te r, "An E xp erim en t Concerning the E ffectiv en ess of
P rogram m ed L earning for U se in T eaching th e Fundam entals of M u sic”
(unpublished d is se rta tio n , W ashington State U niversity, 1963).
W eston, W illiam H ., "Value, M ethods, and C rite ria in T eaching, " in
C ronkhite, B e rn ic e B ., e d ., A Handbook fo r College T e a c h e rs (C am bridge:
H a rv ard U niversity P re s s , 1950).
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
III Pill
762
OOi
79 6
cop.2
Roe, Melvin W
A comparison between
two methods of teaching
social studies at the
college level
DATE
IS S U E D TO
D 378
R 62
fjLAkJU. QAaima
IlO t I
&
iL iiL
TR
AUGS
N fs iA i
I
-
— &
.*v ■
A
G * V rrv -
'^- <iCyo 2—