DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 044 332 SO 000 307

TITLE Social Studies in New England Secondary Schools.INSTITUTICN New England Educational Assessment Project.SPONS AGENCY Office of Education (HEW), Washington, D.C.PUB DATE Jun 69NOTE 60p.

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

EDRS Price MF-$0.50 HC-$3.10*Academic Achievement, *Cultural Background,Educational Philosophy, *Interaction ProcessAnalysis, Longitudinal Studies, Secondary SchoolStudents, *Secondary School Teachers, SocialStudies, Teacher Influence, *Teaching Procedures,ValuesESEA Title V, *New England Educational AssessmentProject

ABSTRACTThe Social Studies Ccmmittee of the New England

Educational Assessment Project conducted this assessment over aperiod of two years. The general objectives of this study were: 1) toidentify the teaching intentions and cultural orientations of 3,631secondary social studies teachers and the value orientations of theirpupils; 2) to obtain teachers perceptions of the factors in thelearning envircnment thought most likely to affect student outcome;3) to identify the classroom interaction patterns of selectedteachers and determine whether particular patterns of interactionsare characteristic of particular teacher intentions or culturalorientations; 4) to measure actual student achievement within thecategories or teaching intention identified by inventories developedor selected for the study; and, 5) to attempt to discover whatrelationships exist between teaching intentions, classroominteraction patterns, and student achievement. The most significantfindings were: the dominant educational intentions and culturalorientations of large numbers of teachers say be identified andanalyzed; and, that these categories proved to be more stronglyrelated to classroom practices and student achievement than any otherfactor. These findings have important implications for curriculumdevelopment, teacher education, and in-service programs. (SPE)

DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH, EDUCATION h

I WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

1.4N THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRODUCED[FUMY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR

PCN ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS GTVIEW OR OPINIONS STATED 00 NOT NECES-SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EC.CATION POSITION OR POLICY

""Its

c) SOCIAL STUDIES IN NEW ENGLANDt.L.a

SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Prepared by

THE NEW ENGLAND EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT

A 000perstive regime] protect of the six Nor &Ord Sums Nadaunder Title V, Section SOS, of the Elementary and Seautdery EducationAct of 196.A

Providence, Mode bland

Jane 1969

NEW ENGLAND COMMISSIONERS OF EDUCATION

William J. Sanders, ConnecticutWilliam T. Logan, Jr., MaineNeil V. Sullivan, Massachusetts

Newell J. Peke, New HampshireWilliam P. Robinson, Jr., Rhode IslandHarvey B. Scribner, Vermont

THE NEW ENGLAND EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT

State Representatives

James M. Burke, ConnecticutRay A. Cook, MaineJames P. Baker, MgssachusettsFrank W. Brown, New HampshireEdward P. Wilcox, Rhode IslandRichard S. Staudt, Vermont

State Directors

John R. Peacosolido, ConnecticutC. Michael P. O'Donnell, WineJesse 0. Richardson, MassachusettsDonald R. Randall, New HampshireJohn A. Snell, Rhode IslandThomas W. Dodge, Vermont

New Engisnd Social Studies Committee

Arthur B. Soderlind, ConnecticutJoseph Pecoraro, MaineEdward DiCenso, MaineArnold F. Lanni., MassachusettsJames G. Hinkle, Jr., MassachusettsCarter B. Hart, New HampshireWilliam F. Carroll, Jr., Rhode IslandRalph H. Weill., Rhode IslandH. Donn McCafferty, VermontThomas W. Dodge, Chairman

Protect Adminhtration

Philip A. Annas, Project DirectorPaul E. Blackwood, Liaison Offices

US. Office of Education

Principal Consultants

Theodore BruitedBoston University

Richard S. StaudtVermont Department of Education

Marvin 0. ClineBoston University

David I.. SyhvestetUniversity of Vermont

Elbert B. 'PhononUniversity of Veiftwei

Prank L Sleeves * z ---"--University of Vernon!

f\I141f'eN

PREFACE

O Social studies in New England's secondary schools consist of courses designed to provide thestudents with knowledge and skills essential for participation in American dea-nocratic society. "Thcsocial studies classroom is a laboratory of patriotic living in which students and teachers practiceprinciples and ideals of American democracy."

The New England Social Studies Committee has conducted an assessment over a period of twoyears to determine the affect on student achievement and attitudes of the values held by teachers, andthe objectives that determine classroom procedures.

The Committee's report should help social studies teachers evaluate their program, and providestate department personnel and school administrators with a better understanding of the current socialstudies curriculum.

The report points to further invedigaticn of the elements in a social studies program at thesecondary level that will provide students with t''e training necessary for well balanced citizens of ademocracy in the 1970's.

Philip A. AnnasProject Director

'Evaluative Criteria, 1960 Edition, National Study of Secondary School Evaluation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Seventeen consultants representing seven universities have contributed to the development ofthis study, although it is primarily the result of the efforts of seven major consultants. Robert Stakecontributed many of the concepts of the basic design. the idea of a value orientation inventory todiscriminate teaching intentions may be credited to Theodore Brame ld. He subsequently headed aresearch group which developed the Social Studies Inventory. lie was assisted by Nobus Shimahara ofRhode Island College, David Conrad and Thonus Hurwitz of Boston University.

An Antecedent Questionnaire was developed by Robed Stake and Terry Denny of the Centerfor Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois. Terry Denny later workedwith Elizabeth Hunter and David Starke: to develop a protocal for classroom Interaction analysis.Subsequent to its development Richard Staudt of the Vennont Department of Education provided bothtraining of classroom obseNers and analysis of FerlIti.

The development of a measure of student outcomes was contributed by Marvin Cline of BostonUniversity. Assisting the project in earlier exploratory research were William Kvaractus of Tufts Univer-sity, and Helen Kenney of Northeastern University.

Actual data gathering was done by both the ad hoc Social Studies Committee of the NewEngland Educational Assessment Project and its state directors. The Social Studies Committee wasassisted in its work by over three thousand New England teachers and school administrators who

t4"voluntarily contributed infomution to the project. The work of these teachers varied from filling outquestionnaires to nuking visits to classrooms of other teachers. Without their support and cooperation

fC the project &-)uld never have been possible.

Final analysis and interpretation of project findings resuhed from the work of a research teamat the University of Vermont. Statistical analysis was done by David Sylvester and Elbett Whotton of

(-Zt the University Mathematics Department. Interpretations of findings and reporting is largely the work ofFrank Stems of the University School of Education.

0Thomu W. DodgeChairman, New England Social Studies Committee

CONTENTS

PREFACEACKNOWLEDGEMENTSChapter

1. THE NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ASSESSMENT 1

Introduction 1

Rationale and Goals 1

Phase 1: Teacher Orientation and the Social Studies Inventory 2

Theoretical Models of Intention 3

Theoretical Models of Cultural Orientations 4

Social Studies Inventory 5

Phase II: Antecedents of Social Studies Programs 6Phase III: Transactions and Classroom Interaction Patterns 7

Phase IV: Selected Student Outcomes 7

Summary 8

II. PHASE]: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SOCIAL STUDIES INVENTORY 9Inventory Administration 9Characteristics of the Total Group 9

Summary 17

111. IN-DEPTH STUDY: THE ANTECEDENT TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 19

Results of the Antecedent Questionnaire 20Relationshio of Intentions to Outcomes 21

Summary 23

IV. INTERACTION ANALYSIS: PHASE III OF THE ASSESSMENT 24Interaction Analysis: A Brief Review 24

Findings 27Summary 32

V. ANALYSIS OP STUDENT OUTCOMES 33Introduction 33The Student Social Studies Inventory 33Initial Results of Analysis 36Additional Analysis 39Summary 39

VI. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 40Appendix 43

CHAPTER ONE

THE NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ASSESSMENT

IntroductionAt the outset of this report it seems desirable to set

forth a description of the assessment as a whole; its objec-tives, its problems, and its procedures. Unless the generaldesign of the study is understood, specific considerationof any of its many facets is confusing.

The report represents the work of the New EnglandSocial Studies Committee over a two-year period. Duringthis time seventeen professional consultants who repre-sented seven universities contributed to the project. Thedesign itself was the work of two major consultants. Fourdata collection instruments were employed, and each ofthese either was the product of a consultant, workingwith a research staff, or was devised by the Committeeafter considerable study. Where necessary, each instru-ment was tested and validated to the satisfaction of itsauthor.

Obviously, a study of these dimensions that invr;;vedmany people and that extended over so long a perioddemanded modification and redefinition occasionally.Translating ideals into practice is never easy. Among thefactors that modified the directions of the assessmentwere the realities set by school schedules, the availabilityof funds, the amount of time that could be given to thework of any individual, and the political and social atti-tudes of teachers. Although the Committee proceeded onthe basis of stated goals and specific plans, the assessmentwas in no sense a pre-designed package in which the ulti-mate goals were already well understood. Rather, thethrust of the study was directed toward an ambitious at-tempt to determine why successful programs haveachieved their goals.

Rationale and Goals

Not a status study. An early decision of the Com-mittee related to the scope of 11)-1 assessment. Early in1967, while procedures were still to be determired, theCommittee agreed that the word "assessment" impliesmore than data gathering and reporting descriptive infor-mation. It was not thlt the Committee considered statusstudies, as such, to be unimportant or of little value.Mote positteely, it was believed strongly that the status ofsocial studies had been amply investigated and ::.reedmany times in the past. Hence, it was decided that theassessment would center on the teaching intentions andvalues of social studies teachers and the relationships, ifany, of these intentions and values to the outcomes ofteaching. Such a study might preside clues to factor con-tributing to "success" in social studies teaching.

1

This is not to imply that quantitative information waslacking in the assessment. In fart, during the spring of1967. the Committee analyzed the characteristics of10,140 social studies teachers and the prevailing programcontent throughout the six-state region. Utilizing t}' pro-gramming services of Measurement Research Center inIowa and the computer capabilities of the 1,:assachusettsState Department of Education, a number of descriptivereports were issued. In August, 1967, and again in Febru-ary, 1968, regional research bulletins were distributed.Similar reports were compiled for each state.

The February, 1968 report consists of eighteen tableswith supporting documentation. It includes the followingkinds of factual information which may be of consider-able value to those who need to know such facts forthese years or who msy be interested in comparing char-acteristics of the social-studies teaching population withthe general population of teachers. The average socialstudies teacher was thirty-seven yeas old. Twenty-five percent were twenty-seven years old or younger. Twenty-fiveper cent were forty-five or older. Among the youngerteachers, those under twenty-nine, men outnumberedwomen by more than two to one. However, among theolder teachers, fifty and above, women greatly outnum-bered men. "`re than twice as many social studies teach-ers were fou 4J to be single. Nearly half of the teachersheld the Bachelor's degree, and nearly a third of all theteachers the Master's degree. A surprising ten per cent hadcompleted thirty semester hours or more beyond the Mas-ter's degree, and approximately thirty teachers held theearned Doctorate. At the other end of the rale, somethree hundred social studies teachers were found whowere teaching with something less than a college degree.About forty per cent had completed a college level coursewithin the previous five years. The data suggested thatmany social studies teachers move frequently. Althoughthe statistical avtrage indicated that the teachers hadabout nine years experience, with seven of these years istheir present system. it was also noted that a full fifty percent had less than four years with their current system.About twenty per tent were working for the first year inthe system. Similar figures were compiled for such mat-ters as salaries, extra class assignments, pupil-teacher ritics, number of years in non - public schools, type of insti-tution from which degrees were earned, and total courseioad,

tst an naluation. By early agreement of the Com-mittee, an assessment should not be concerned with valuejudgments relating to specific social studies teachers ofprograms. That is, the Corrunitte: decided that it should

not be concerned with how good or how bad particularteachers or programs might be judged. Rather, the assess-ment should concern itself with questions relating to theactual teaching intentions and values held by social studiesteachers, the conditions of teaching that affect such inten-tions and values, the relationships, if any, of teachers' in-tentions and certain student outcomes.

Objectives. In general tem the goals of the studywere sated by the Committee as follows:

I. Identify the teaching intentions and cultural orien-tations of social studies teachers and the value ori-entations of their pupils,

2. Obtain teachers' perceptions of the factors in thelearning environment thought most likely to affectstudent outcome,

3. Identify the classroom interaction patterns of se-lected teachers and determine whether particular'patterns of interaction are characteristic of partiru-lar teacher intentions or cultural orientations.

4. Measure actual student achievement within the cat-egories or teaching intention identified by instru-ments developed or selected for the study,

5. Attempt to discover what relationships exist be-tween teaching Intentions, ckscroont Interactionpatterns, and student achievement.

Two corollary objectives were stated as benefits tolocal school administrators. First, administrators would beable to use the project results to assess the combination ofcurriculum inputs that would most likely achieve local so-cial studies objectives. Teachers would then be providedwith a basis for local curriculum change. Second, adminis-trators might be able to use the scores from project instru-ments to 'mess the effectiveness of their own evaluationprocedures, especially to the degree that local teachers wereable to see how well their own intentions were actuallyattained.

General design. By July, 1967, contracts were award-ed to develop instruments designed to measure four kindsof information. Development of these instruments even-tually involved five consultants and their research associatesin rout colleges, a research consortium, and, of course, theeffort and contributions of the Committee itself, either tomodify the ptoducts of consultants or to develop substituteinstruments. The tour primary measures and those respon-sible for the design or selection of each were as follows:

I. An Instrument to identify the make orientations ofsocial sit dies teachers as a means through whkh toidentify the educational Went: of social studiesteachers, Dr. Theodore Brameld, Boston Unkersity:

2. An Instrument to Indicate a teachnl perceptionsof the learning environment for the social studiesprogram, termed the selected antecedents of socialstudio programs, Dr. Robert Stake, Untrersity ofIllinois;

2

3. An instrument or a means of describing the socialdynamics or classroom Interaction patterns in so-cial studies classes, Dr. Terry Denny, EducationalProdu:is Information Exchange, and Dr. RichardStaudt, Vermont State Department of Education;

4. An insintment or Instruments to measure studentoutcomes as a result of social studies programs,specifically, to measure students' cognif lve percep-tions or knowledge of social situations In terms ofspecific value orientations, and to measure t!tedents' dispositions to act in social situations as evi-dence of these values, Dr. Marvin Cline, BostonUniversity.

It was hoped that the instrument intended to identifyvalue orientations or educational intents, hereafter referredto as the SOCIAL STUDIES INVENTORY, would be com-pleted by approximately twelve thousand teachers through-out New England as selected from the NEEAP RegionalData Bank. This part of the assessment wa% considered tobe an all-New England survey and constituted Phase I of thestudy. The SOCIAL STUDIES INVENTORY, described ingreater detail under the following heading, was developedby Professor Brameld and his associates, during the fall of1967, field tested and refined during the spring and summerof 1968, and administered as part of the assessment in latefall, 1968.

The remaining three instruments were intended to beused with thirty-six selected teachers and their studentsfrom throughout New England whose teaching intentionsand cultural orientations were identified by the SOCIALSTUDIES INVENTORY. These aspects of the assessmentwere termed, collectively, the In-Depth Study. The In-Depth Study, therefore, consisted of the three Phases, uti-lizing instruments 2, 3 and 4 from the general design; PhaseII, use of the Antecedent Teacher Questionnaire; Phase Ill,determination of classroom transactions and interactionanalysis patterns; and Phase 1V, measures of student out-comes. Activation of Phases II, Ili, and IV of necessity,followed that of Phase I. However, since time allowanceswere limited, development of the latter instruments paral-leled that of the SOCIAL STUDIES INVENTORY andtheir administration both overlapped and followed the ad-ministration of Phase 1. Processing of data, statistical analy-sis, and writing was scheduled during the spring, 1969. Eachof these instruments or measures, their development, andtheir use is described in the remainder of this chapter.

Phase I. TEACHER ORIENTATIONAND THE SOCIAL STUDIES

INVENTORYRationale

Value Or and concern. In the idectifIcstionof goals or teacher intents it was felt that the controllingfactor consists of certain values held by the teacher or ad-

mintstrator. The following insights guided the developmentof conceptual models and instruments to identify teachingintentions. Values are referred to in everyday terms asconcerns. What people are concerned about is importantbecause it determines the object of their attention, andhence, the subject of their thoughts and focus of consciousactions. In the view of modem depth psychology it isconcern which precedes any conscious act. When feeling oremotion is attached to either objects in one's environmentor to characteristic forms of cultural behavior, the result isa value orientation. Feeling and emotion have been shownby Freud and his successors to be the root forces operatingin personality and the most useful key to explaining behav-'or. They are at ft primary level determinant of all consciousacts. Thus by beginning with basic motives or values of theteachers studied it was hoped a more authentic brais foridentification of teaching intentions could be found than istypically avai!able in the formal statements of intention.

If the teacher is concerned about a certain kind ofdevelopment in a pupil, he takes some action which hehopes will advance this development. His action should beappropriate to his intended goals. But how he acts is deter-mined by the values to which he is committed. Thus toboth predict the actions of teachers and evaluate theireffect on outcomes of students it seemed most fruitful tobegin with the basis of action. A consistency of concernsexhibited by a teacher in the SOCIAL STUDIES INVEN-TORY was assumed in this study as evidence of a stable,consistent value orientation.

Fundamentally and in broad terms, the educational in-tentions of social studies teacher might be expected topoint in any of three possible directions: (a) toward thesubject being taught, of and for its own sake; that is, anintention that might be termed disciplinary in nature ccIntegrity of Discipline; (b) toward practical skills or theapplication of knowledge required to cope with people, aUtilitarian or Social Utility approach, and (c) toward uni-versal or ideal principles of social life, or what might beconsidered a humanistic intention. These three categories ofintent may be expected to result rathci naturally from dif-ferences in academic or professions) repetition or fromprior experience.

Instruments and techniques accepted by the Com-mittee fot identification of thw value orientations are con-sistent with, and derived in pad from, work done byFlorence Kluckhohn and Fred L Strodtbeck and may befound in their book, Variations by Value Orientations.'

The categorisation of patterns of behavior and iu inter-pretation as an exhibition of t value orientation, is a basictechnique frequeltly used in anthropological analysis. In-struments such as the SOCIAL STUDIES INVENTORYha.i been used on a number of occasions to relate :auntto education and to'dhcriminate educational intentions suc-cessfully.

3

THEORETICAL MODELS

OF INTENTION

Integrity of Discipline in this study implies the beliefthat in the program of study there are certain essential factsor concepts which are to be acquired. To some degree thereis an assumption that the teacher's task is a formal one;formal in the sense that there is a formal structure appropri-ate to each academic discipline which it is the teacher'sdt ty to impart to the learner.

In this way, geography as a discipline is viewed as abody of knowledge developed through the years, utilizing aparticular method for accumulation of facts. The teachesfaces the task of enabling the student to acquire these facts.At advanced levels he may also be concerned with themethod of inquiry that leads to the accumulation of datawithin the discipline. The theoretical basis for this practiceis the belief that man lives in a world of discreet thingswhich can be known in terms of the empirically identifiablecharacteristics which represent them.

The Discipline Oriented Teacher 'a defined for the pur-poses of this study as one who views a particular disciplineas being an essential part if the curriculum because thatsubject has developed a body of knowledge that is essentialto producing the educated man. Ile stresses the basic con-cepts of the discipline with the methods of inquiry andmodes of thought of scholars in those disciplines. Such ateacher would be inclined to have his students pursue thesubject as an historian, sociologist or political scientist sothat in effect the students come away with an external viewof mankind and a respect for the discipline's contributionto our accumulated body of knowledge.

Social Utility as an intention is oriented toward theimparting of knowledge that the teacher believes will have afunctional value to the students in their attempts to odlustto the demands of society. This approach tends to be prig-mule and present, rather than past oriented. The student isexpected to develop a skill and an ability to operate suc-cessfully within the structure of any social group. There isan attempt to prepare students for their role as participat-ing members of institutions within a society.

The aims of Social Utility are always process oriented.Equipped with this kind of knowledge, the student maylearn how to play games, win friends, vote, read the news-paper, or make money depending upon his Immediate needsor In theoretical terms Social Utility principlesare Emanuel Kant's Hypothetical Imperatives. Such knowl-edge may help the student to gain has private end because itis eventually a skill or technique for doing something withor to people. It is, therefore, always a form of appliedknowledge.

A Humanistic Intention as defined in this study has asits objective the understanding of human nature. The immedi-ate subject of study may be individual human behavior, a

social interaction pattern, or even an event from history.the teacher himself may be trained in any discipline. Whatcilstinguithes the humanistic orientation is that any individ-ual observation, event, or institution becomes the object ofstudy because it serves as a manifestation of some universalgeneralifation about man.

The humanistic teacher does not stop in his teaching toemphasize a fact, or even the relationship of several facts insuccession, except as fact exemplifies or illustrates a prin-ciple. These facts are united by an appropriate hypothesisrelated to the idea of a common humanity. The develop-ment of inquiry in a humanistic classroom always cubni-nate: in an observation or discovery illustrating a universalstatement about man, his nature, or his behavior. Thus, forthe humanistic teacher, the Battle of Waterloo may serve toshow the pervasive fact of all history that aggressiol undis-ciplined by an ideal will dissipate its force in eventual socialdisorder and defeat for the aggressor. Such a teacher wouldstress the reform of society rather than adjustment to so-ciety.

At this point it might be well to emphasize that neitherthe Committee nor Professor Brameld believed that fewsocial studies teachers could be dangled as "pure" ex-ample: of the categories of intent that have been described.Most teachers are all of these things to different degrees andet different times. A major hypothesis of the study, how-ever, was that of the many contending intentions of ateacher, some are more intensely grasped; and that in spe-cific choice situations, when the chips are down, the mostdominant value will emerge as the determinant of what ateacher does. If observed over a period of time, the neteffect of dominant intentions should be apparent as a pat-tern of both teaching practices and consequent student out-comes. This assumption provided a continuing foundationfor research throughout 141 phases of the assessment. In thein-depth part of the study selected teachers vats observedover a period of time. One reason for these observationswas to determine whether incited teachers actually do ex-hibit a consistent pattern of veheviot In the classtoom

The II-U-D (tlumanistk, Utilitarian, Discipline) modelrepresents an attempt to distinguish In a most genetic andmeaningful way the preitent diversity of gosh within thefield of Social Studies today. It is a theoretical model foridentifying within this continuum the focus of the mostdominant educational intentions of teachers. The word"dominant" deserves emphasis. Even though discrete tate-corks of teachets with a single kind of intent might notexist, it seemed reasonabk to assume that significant num-bent of social studies teachers might approach their workwith one value orientation of another dominating their in-tentions. If so, might there not be significant relationshipsamong such dotninuit intentions, the class procedures ofthe teachers, and the eventual outcomes of their students?Neither the Committee not its consultant judged any of

4

these intents as better or worse than the others. A majorgoal of the study was to determine the degree to whichdominant teaching intentions, revealed as value orienta-tions, influence various types of outcomes. The success of aprogram was assumed to exist when intentions and out-comes are congruent. The Committee did not make judg-ments about the intentions of the teachers who partici-pated. it soug,i.t only to identify these value orientationsand their consequent impact on the learning process.

THEORETICAL MODELS OFCULTURAL ORIENTATIONS

The model thus far discussed complement' a sec-ond triadic model. TWA model was called the INT con-tinuum. Both models represent equally important and inde-pendent dimensions. The Innovative, or I category stands atone end; the iransmissive or T category stands at the other,and the Moderative or M category respresents a middlerange within the continuum. Again, the term "continuum"is essential. It indicates that no one category is self-contained or exclusive; rather, each merges with the other.

The primary concern of the I.M-T model was with thegoals of American culture, or more focally, of that area ofAmerican culture known as the New England region.Whereas the 11U-D model was deliberately geared specifi-cally to educational values, the I-M-T model emphasized thetole of teachers as curlers of the cultute and was concernedwith their attitudes towards this role.

Figure 1

INTENTIONSSocial Integrity of

humanistic Utility Discipline

ORIENTATIONS

Innovative

Moderative

Transmissive

As Figure I, above, suggests, the Committee expectedtnat I-M-T and IIU-D would overlap. Most ckarly, T and

D, were felt likely to be congenial. Less frequently, I andas defined, might be expected to reflect congenial atti-

tudes. It was not the Committee's intention to drawparallels between the two pairs in any precise way; eachof the six categories was expected to reflect attitudes thatnone of the other five would reflect equally.

Professor Brame ld defined I-M-T as follows:1. Innovative, as connoting an attitude toward cul-

ture conducive to change, novelty, variation, ad-venture, audacity, explorativeness, alteration, orother characteristics supporting an orientation to-ward change. Negatively it may reflect discontentwith habitual cultural patterns.

2. Transmissive, es connoting an attitude toward cul-ture amenable io preservation, constancy, cau-tion, routine, stability, acceptance, regularity, re-inforcement, or to other characteristicssupporting an orientation toward preserving thecustoms and folkways of the culture. It wasnoted that the transmissive person could favorchange or evolution and that he could be dy-namic rather than strictly static in his conserv-atism.

3. Moderativt, as connoting an attitude toward cul-ture amenable to gradualness, temporal order-liness, careful experi,sentation, tolerance,flexibility, amenability, open-mindedness, pro-gress, development, evolution, or other character-'slice supporting an orientation away from anyextreme position. It was noted that this valueorientation should not be considered as one ofmere compromise or eclectic wavering but that itsposition on the continuum suggests mobility andthe ability to resolve alternative positions.

Both HUD and TMI models represented much morethan a survey of practices in the social studies. In a veryreal sense they prthe into the total educational and cul-tural orientations of social studies teachers, perhaps even

a venture in the basis of the social life of future citizens.

SOCIAL STUDIESINVENTORY

As noted, the instrument designed by ProfessorBrarneld was similar to measures used previously by bothDr. Brameld and by other authors in anthropology andeducation. It was develuped and tested during 1967 and1968 and administered during the fall of 1968.

During the process of development four major stepswere taken. First, two triiibeiry tests were undertaken,one with graduate students in education under the direct-ion or Professor Rremeld at Boston University, the secondwith undergraduate students under the direction of Pro -fissot Nobuo Shimahara at Rhode Island College. In eachcase the student pouiv. Med out the instrument twice, a

S

brief period elapsing between the two occasions. No pre-liminary interpretation was provided, and standard in-structions were followed. After the second administration,students were introduced to the HUD and TMI concepts.They were then interviewed to determine whether theyl'alt they had a dominant teaching intention andfor cul-tural orientation. Of this total, 24 were identified as

Transmissive, 37 as Moderate, and 60 as Innovative. Ofthe total group, 51 others were teaching, or intended toteach, social studies, and expressed a dominant intentionas a teacher. Of these 29 were identified as Humanistic,17 as Social Utility, and 5 as Disciplinary in their in-tentions.

Following these interviews, scores on the instrumentwere compared to determine whether all dominantly com-mitted respondents had been placed in the same categor-ies on both occasions of administration. They were. Threeitems, upon analysis, however, appeared to him, eliciteddifferent responses on each occasion of administration tothe same person. They were subsequently eliminated asunreliable !terns. The remaining items were considered re-liable.

Next, respondents to the inventory were grouped bycategory and scores compared with results of the inter-view categorization. Dominant instrument score categorieswere found in all cases to be the same as those identifiedby interviewers. No tests or comparisons of intensity weremade, however. The results of the correspondence of in-terview Ointment and scoring categorization were takenas strong evidence of validity.

A similar procedure was followed with a group of 23teachers in New York City. This time a companion instru-ment was administered to determine whether some teach-ers might be biasing their response as a result of a strongfeeling toward the content of the item situation ratherthan the alternative responses provided to the item situ-ation. Although this yielded interesting responses, nostrong biases were found to be interfering. Furthermore,the responses were more uniformly distributed among thesix categories measured. There we.-e, for example, 4 Hu-manistic, 6 Social Utility, and 3 Discipline intentionedteachers. There were 5 TfailltriitSiVt, 9 Nodosity*, and 9Innovative teachers.

As a second major step, nriickrion tent were takenby seven peers of Professors Brameld and Shimahara, thatis, by professors at Boston University and Rhode IslandCollege. The theoretical models for the instrernent;ty, the II-U4) and 144-T conceptual categories mere ex-plained to each peer. He was then asked to complete theinstrument, identifying response alternatives, Item byitem, as en-tient to specific twon.it categories. The put-pose was to determine whether or not the petetptioetthe peers coincided with those of the authors of the test,and the students who had previously responded. In other

words, did the test measure what it was intended to mea-sure? Again, the ratio of consistency between the estab-lished key and the judgments of the peers was extremelyhigh. Only three items previously in question were foundto yield inconsistent responses. They were subsequentlyeliminated.

As a third step, a number of minor changes weremade in the wording of other items and instructions as aresult of personal interviews with the students and pro-fessors who had participated in the reliability and validitytests. The intention here was to eliminate ambiguity orother defects of wording.

Finally, is order to determine whether a sufficientn nber of respondents might be found committed toeach of the categories, the test was administered to 26selected social studies teachers of expected commitmentfrom each of several New England States. Results weresimilar to those reported for New York teachers. Evenafter this "final" step in development, the instrument wasfield tested still further at two NDEA summer institutesin 1968 (Dartmouth College and the University of Maine),and additional minor changes in wording of instructionand format were introduced.

The summer institute field tests resulted in 379 teach-ers classified as dominantly Humanistic, 235 dominantlySocial Utility, and 247 dominantly Discipline intentioned.This was taken as an indication that enough responseswould be revealed in these categories for all phases of theproposed in-depth study. Most of the teachers proved tobe either Innovative or Moderative in their cultural orien-tations. A total of 743 were dominantly Innovative, 633dominantly Moderative, and 17 Transmissive.

The inventory was approved by the Committee at theconclusion of these many refinements.

It was agreed that its use would alert teachers to theexistence of value orientations and would give them in-sights into their own educational intents. The instrumentis not without antecedents in education. A similar proce-dure was followed by Professor Braineld in his recentlypublished study of culture, education, and change in twoJapanese corrununiti s.2

The final version of the test contains thirty-six items,each with three alternate responses for a total of 108alternatives Each item consists of an imaginary situation.The respondent is asked to select from the three altern-atives the choice that seems closest to his own beliefs orways of acting. The Ley was established to identify H-U-Dor I-M-T orientations found to correspond to the alter-native choices.

Phase II. ANTECEDENTS ofSOCIAL STUDIES PROGRAMS

ORIGINAL DESIGN In the original design forassessment ;. was hoped that funds would permit a study

6

of such factors as class size, media and library resources,school size, criteria for student grouping, IQ scores, teach-er backgrounds, and community environment. These fact-ors were considered to permit curriculum inputs thatotherwise would not be possible. Such antecedents existprior to the learning process but certainly influence thelearning process L every school. It was hoped that in theanalysis of selected curricula, certain clusters of ante-cedents would appear consistently related to high achieve-ment of teacher intentions for learning outcomes.

Dr. Robert Stake of the University of Illinois under-took to develop an instrument that would describe thebeginning conditions that would most likely influence thelearning outcomes of students and that would also in-dicate a teacher's perceptions of those conditions. Thevariables were grouped under five categories: Teachercharacteristics, curricular context, instructional materials,physical plant, and school organization.

Professor Stake had constructed an antecedent instru-ment by March of 1968 which was based upon these fivecategories. By then the Committee perceived that manyof the antecedent factors that affect learning in the totalcurriculum of the school are, perhaps, not major factorsin determining educational outcomes in the social studies.For example, the existence of an excellent gymnasiummight affect total curricular patterns but is of little directinfluence in the teaching of history. The antecedent in-strument presented to the Committee was of such broadscope that it recalled the school-wide standards of accred-iting associations. It was not applicable as an instrumentspecifically related to the determination of outcomes inthe social studies. Unfortunately, also financial and timeconstraints prevented analysis of the numbers of programsoriginally planned. For these reasons the Committee de-cided in April, 1968, to prepare its own modified ante-cedent teacher questionnaire.

Antecedent teacher questionnaire. The antecedentteacher questionnaire approved by the Committee in thefall of 1968 consists of ten open-ended questions designedto form the basis for a series of interviews with the teach-ers selected for in-depth study. From the interviews it washoped that a picture of the teacher's perceptions of hisprofessional position would emerge. When compared withthe measurement of his intentions and selected outcomesof his students, certain factors might be identified as char-acteristic of the successful teacher. "Successful" in thiscontext, of course, means that intents and outcomes arecongruent.

Teachers for the in-depth study were identified byNovember, 1968, and the interviews were conducted dur-ing February and March, 1969. The results of this phaseof the assessment are included in Chapter Three of thisreport.

Phase III. TRANSACTIONSand CLASSROOM INTERACTION

PATTERNS

BACKGROUND From the beginning theCommittee agreed that an important part of the in-depthstudy would center on some kind of actual observation inthe classes of those teachers selected for the study. In-itially, Dr. Terry Denny of Educational Products Infor-mation Exchange, provided the Committee with descrip-tions and recommendations about .nany published instru-ments designed to objectify the fo ces at work within theclassroom. It was readily agreed Mat observations under-taken as part of the assessment should be objectified andstandardized to the highest possible degree. During thelatter part of 1967 and the first half of 1968 the Com-mittee devoted considerable discussion to the problem ofselecting a suitable procedure for recording classroomdynamics.

In July, 1968, Dr. Richard Staudt presented a designfor interaction analysis utilizing instruments recommendedpreviously by Dr. Denny and based primarily upon theworks of Ned Flanders and E.!. Amidon. Briefly, forthose who may be unacquainted with the procedure, it isconcerned primarily with verbal interaction in the class-room. Standard procedures have been developed for re-cording such factors the amount of time spent by theteacher in asking qv.. -Nils, the amount of time he spentpraising or encouraging pupils, the amount of time hedevoted to accepting the ideas of pupils or that he de-voted to expressing his own ideas, and the amount oftime consumed by students talking. In addition, the pur-poses and activities of the lesson are placed by the observ-er into a number of predetermined "Time-Use" categories.The purpose of interaction analysis is not to evaluate theeffectiveness of the teacher nor to rate him in any man-ner. Fundamentally, its intent is to reveal the dynamics ofthe encounter between teachers and pupils through themedium of their recorded verbal exchanges. Previous re-search3 has shown this technique useful in discriminatingthe effects of such factors as direct and indirect teacherinfluence on attitudes and achievement. It was planned toutilize the same research process in a larger context.

By inspecting the interaction patterns in successfulclassrooms a consistent series of practices might becomeevident that might illustrate relationships between teach-ing practices and student outcomes in the various areas ofintention. If so, it might then be inferred that certainpractices are more likely to achieve certain teachar intentsthan others. Such data could be valuable for planningin-service programs as w411 as in programs of teacher prep-aration.

Training of observers. Under the direction of Dr.Staudt, fourteen observers, including Committee members

7

and others, underwent an intensive three-day training pro-gram November 6-8, 1968, at the Needham High School,Massachusetts. The classes of Needham High School weremade available for the necessary laboratory work. It wasDr. Staudt's opinion that reliable observations and recordscould be obtained after such an intensive training period.His opinion was substantiated by a reliability analysis thatHas conducted at the conclusion of the training period. Ahigh degree of consistency was noted in the records madeby all fourteen observers in each of the ten categories ofconcern. More subjectively, the observers, themselves,agreed that the training was of such an intensive and stan-dardized nature that they felt prepared for the task to bedone.

Schedule. Originally it was planned that six class-rooms from each of the six states would be selected bythe Committee for observations. Each class would be ob-served during at least five class periods, between the be-ginning and the last day of work on a given topic. Thereason for this spread being that some teachers exhibitdifferent behaviors during introductory and concludingphases of a topic. As explained in introduction to PhaseII, participants for all in-depth studies were selected inNovember, 1968. Observations were conducted throughthe winter and early spring, 1968-69. During March, andcontinuing into April, 1969, the quantitative results weretabulated and analyzed. These results are discussed inChapter Four of this report.

Phase IV: SELECTEDSTUDENT OUTCOMES

Design. In order to obtain data indicative of stu-dent achievement as a factor influenced by teacher in-tents, instructional antecedents, and classroom interactionpatterns, a pre/post test model was selected. A multi-scaletest was constructed by Dr. Marvin Cline of Boston Uni-versity and it was planned that this test would be used inconjunction with a conventional standardized achievementtest in the social studies.

The design of the student outcomes test developed byProfessor Cline reflects the desire of the Committee toidentify a wide range of outcomes; Dr. Cline's task was toidentify an appropriate standardized social studies achieve-ment test, and tlien supplement it with a measure of out-comes consistent with the Humanistic and Social Utilityconcepts of teaching intention. It was expected that thesupplementary instrument would identify many crucialareas not now widely recognized. After careful review ofthe literature of measurement, it was agreed that no singleinstrument existed that would meet the Committee's cri-teria. For this reason, Dr. Cline assembled an instrumentconsisting of subscales from a number of standardizedtests, each of which identified an area judged most appro-priate to the goals of the Committee.

The major categories within the "Social Studies Stu-dent Inventory" include such areas as self confidence, rac-ial attitudes, dogmatism, anxiety attitudes toward demo-cratic ideals, toward property rights, toward foreign ideas,attitudes toward the roles of parents, teachers, and peers,and other outcomes whose measurement might be labelledcontroversial by some observers. Nevertheless, it was feltby the Committee that these kind of attitudes representimportant social outcomes of schooling, to which SocialStudies should have the most direct contribution. Takenin the strict sense, attitudes are dispositions to act. Assuch they were felt to be perhaps the hest predictors ofthe manner in which students would act in future socialsituations. It was assumed that social studies do or shouldeffect these social (or ant-social) attitudes of students.

Professor Cline was satisfied that each of the sub-scales in his instrument had proved useful in large scaleinvestigations and that validity criteria were well establish-ed and relevant to the purposes of the project. Theseopinions were accepted by the Committee. The instru-ment was field tested with 40 eleventh and twelfth gradestudents during 1968 summer sessions in Boston. InAugust, 1968, Dr. Cline presented a revision that wasjudged to be about fifty minutes in length. The final ver-sion, accepted in October, consists of five sub-tests labell-ed A, B, C, E, and F, totalling 108 objective items, forthe most part multiple choice or true-false. It was assum-ed that it could be completed within forty minutes.

Administration. The test was to be given in classesof those teachers selected for in-depth study. Classes wereselected upon the basis of similar subject context, gradelevel and student ability. Classes selected were to be elev-enth grade classes in U.S. History. Students tested were tobe of average or mixed ability. In this way it was hopedextremes might be avoided and the results of testing bemost widely relevant. Pre-testing was to be done immed-iately upon completion of selection in October. Post test-ing was to be done in the same classes during April. Itwas hoped that this schedule of pre and post testingwould be adequate to reveal changes representing the im-pact of the teacher studied.

Summary

The New England Educational Assessment Project inthe social studies was conceived as more than a statusstudy or survey of practices in the social studies. It wasan attempt to cut through the conventional preoccupa-tions with names, dates, and places as indicative socialstudies outcomes to identify a broader range of social andparticularly citizenship outcomes. Most importantly, itwas an attempt to develop a way to assess how effectiveteachers are in achieving their intentions for their stu-dents; and to identify some of the input factors which

8

seem to account for the achievement of the more success-ful teachers. As part of this effort it was necessary tocreate a way of categorizing and identifying the teachingintentions of several thousand teachers, to study in depththe fat,tors most likely to influence student outcomes;and to find a way of getting at the student outcomesmost likely to be predictors of future social and citizen-ship behavior. These components of the study and find-ings will be discussed in detail in the next chapters.

Consultants were employed to develop instrumenta-tion and/or procedures to implement each major Phase ofthe assessment. These consultants, working with theirstaffs, proceeded through the latter part of 1967 and allof 1968 to develop, field test, and refine measures. Thosethat were accepted for use by the Committee were, in theopinions of those responsible, validated to the fullestpossible degree under the limitations of time and fundingwithin which the assessment operated.

Dr. Theodore Brame Id developed an instrument to de-tect teaching intentions as value orientations of teachersalong two continuums. These were termed Humanistic,Utilitarian, and Integrity of Discipline along one contin-uum, and Innovative, Moderative, and Transmissive alongthe other. Professor Robert Stake constructed a compre-hensive instrument for measuring selected antecedentsthat was too lengthy for use within the financial resourcesof the Committee. Hence, the Committee developed itsown Teacher Antecedent Questionnaire. Dr. Terry Dennycompleted the initial planning for the study of ci-ssroominteraction analysis, a program that was brought to frui-tion as part of the in-depth study by Dr. Richard Staudt.Finally, Dr. Marvin Cline produced an attitude scale thatwas designed to provide a measure of certain student out-comes.

Administration of these instruments proceededthroughout the winter 1968-69 and into the spring of1969. Practical considerations resulted in many necessaryrevisions of the original purposes and plans of the Com-mittee. These departures are explained and described inthe remainder of this report. The following four chaptersconsist of detailed analysis of both the procedures andthe results of each of the four major Phases of the assess-ment.

1. Florence Kluckhohn and Fred L. Strodtbeck, Varia-tions in Value Orientations, Row Peterson & Co., Evanston,111., 1961.

2. Theodore Brame ld, Japan Culture Education, andChange in the Communities. Holt, Rhinehart & Winston,N.Y., 1968.

3. Teacher Influences, Pupil Attitudes, and Achieve-ment, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,1965.

CHAPTER TWO

PHASE I: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SOCIAL STUDIES INVENTORY

IN VENTORYADMINISTRATION

Selection of respondents Social Studies Teacher In-ventories and response forms were sent to each state forall teachers in the NEEAP staff data flies who were iden-tified as full time social studies teachers in grades 10, 11,and 12 the previous year. Social studies teachers wereconsidered to be those with three or more teaching assign-ments in the social studies.

Standard Instructions. -Superintendents of schools ineach participating state were informed of the purposes ofthe study, either in person or by letter, in September,1968. They were told that high school principals wouldadminister the inventory to all of the social studiesteachers in their respective schools, and that inventorybooklets, response sheets, and further instructions wouldfollow. Copies of these materials were enclosed for eachsuperintendent to .xamine. Criticisms and comments wereinvited. Shortly thereafter, principals were given similarinformation either in person or by letter. The instructionsto principals were quite specific concerning administrationof the instrument. It was asked that the inventory beadministered to teachers in a group, that it should not bediscussed until after all had completed it and returned thebooklets, and that it should not be explained ahead oftime except in terms of the official description and au-thorization of the project as described to the principals.Faculty discussion was invited following collection of in-ventories and responses, and again teachers were invitedto communicate their comments and criticisms to theProject Director in their state. This design was intendedto reduce any fears that might be felt, either by teachersor by administrators, and to insure a reasonable degree ofparticipation.

Percentage of Return - As is shown in Table I thepercentage of forms (eturned for scoring ranged fromnearly one hundred percent in New Hampshire to sixteenpercent in Rhode Island. Explanations were sought forthe relatively low percentage of return in Vermont andRhode Island as well as for the relatively high returns inthe other three states. (Connecticut did not participate inthe study). Both resulted from decisions made at theDepartment of Education which had the effect of limitingthe study to a self selected sample of volunteerrespondents.

9

Table 1

Number and Percentage of Forms Returned for Scoring

State Number of Number PercentageTeachers Returned Returned

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Region* (sub total)

Rhode Island

Vermont

412

2,242

320

2,968

424

239

317

1,334

314

1,965

70

53

77

60

98

66

16

22

New England (total) 3,631 2,088 58

Characteristicsof the Total Group

Scoring Standards. The data in Table 2 on the fol-lowing page show the total nurer of respondents ineach category, HUD and TMI. In this regard it should benoted that "teacher preference" (11,U,D,T,M,I) was deter-mined by a higher score in one category than that occur-ring in others. For example, for the thirteen questionsrelating to either H, U, or D intentions, if a teacherscored (H,U,D) = (4,8,1.), he was classified as dominantlyU. A teacher who scored (H,U,D) = (6,4,3) would havebeen classified as dominantly H. Thus, the smallest degreeof domination could have been a 5, 4, 4 arrangement, ifall thirteen questions were answered. If some of the ques-tions were omitted, as might be shown by (H,U,D) =(1,2,4), the teacher was classified as dominantly D. In allinstances, the decision was one of higher score in onecategory compared with those in others. Where there wasno higher category score, (H,U,D) = (5,5,3), it was assum-ed that the teacher displayed no dominant intentions.

Table 2

Dominant Teacher Orientations: AU New England Survey

State Number of Respondents by Category

No No

H U D Pre-ference

T M 1 Pre-ference

Maine 140 62 59 56 11 179 100 27Massachusetts 654 194 278 208 32 622 569 111

New Hampshire 187 50 34 43 2 154 129 29

Region Total 981 306 371 307 45 955 798 167Percent Responses 50.0 15.5 19.0 15.5 2.3 48.6 40.6 8.5

I ,965 * 1,798 *

Rhode Island 34 12 18 2 25 33Vermont 34 6 6 0 20 28

New England Total 1,049 324 395 320 47 1,000 859 182Percent Responses 50.0 15.5 19.0 15.5 2.3 47.9 41.1 8.7

2,088 ** 1,906 **

*Total Respondents in Region.**Total Respondents in New England

100

75

50

Figure 2 - Humanistic

\ \ \5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

score

10

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13score

Figure 4 -Discipline100

75

50

25

\ \ \ N5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

score

100

75

50

25

0

Figure 5 - Transmissive

1O NOOMOMOMMIMIOMNI

IMIIMillINIEMIMI

INMI1.1111

MillN MINM

- OW NMI 11.1. 111

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23score

11

100

75

25

0

Figure 6- Moderativ e

- I

MI -M. Wm On

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23score

100%

75

50

25

0

Figure 7- Innovative

ae.MMI

O EM

MEI MIMIPM MI

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23score

12

Dominant TeacherOrientations: Five New

England StatesSimilarly, the 23 questions relating to the TMI clas-

sifications were scored by categorizing a teacher in termsof the category with the highest score. Thus, if a teacherscored (T,M,I) = (10,4,9), he was classified as dominantlyTransmissive.

Further, if a teacher scored (H,U,D) = (9,4.0) and(T,M,I) = (4,7,12) he was classified as dominantly H, and,I, or simply HI. On the other hand, if he scored (H,U,D)= (5,5,3) and (T,M,I) = (8,8,7), it was assumed that hedisplayed no dominant preferences.

These examples might be multiplied to explain anypossible interpretation, but in all instances the decisionwas made by highest score within a category. The totalnumber of dominant inventories incladed only those dis-playing a clear predominance of one category as otherTMI orientations. Since some 15.5 percent of the respon-dents did not indicate a dominant response, the numberof teachers expressing dominancies was somewhat lessthan the total number returned. Of 1965 inventories re-turned in Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, asshown in Table 2, 1658 showed dorninancies for HUDintentions, and 1798 showed dominancies on the TMIorientations. Of 2088 returned hi the five New Englandstates, 1768 were dominant for HUD and 1906 weredominant for TMI.

It should be noted that this method of scoring isconsistent with Professor Brame ld's criteria for cate-gorizing an individual in terms of dominant intentions andorientations. However, the Committee agreed with Dr.Cline that a more rigid scoring standard should be appliedto the selection of teachers for the in-depth phases of theassessment. In accordance with Professor Cline's recom-mendation, teachers identified as dominantly H, U, or Dwere required to score at least 9 out of the 13 items inthe appropriate category. For the T-M-I orientations, 13of the 23 items were required to fall into one category oranother. This provided statistical confidence at the .10level that chance factors could not account for the scoresreported.

Conclusions. Exmaination of Table 2 suggests anumber of conclusions that might be expressed about thegeneral results of the five state survey.

1. An overwhelming proportion of the teachers whoresponded in each state, in the regional total(Maine, N.H., Mass.), and in the five state total,considered themselves to be Humanistic, H, intheir teaching intentions. Fully SO per cent of thetotal returns were identified as indicating a dom-inant commitment to Humanistic goals. Ofcourse, it is not known whether this large per-centage represents honestly held intentions or an

13

effort to "beat" the key established for Humanis-tic intentions. The latter possibility should be rec-ognized but even if so, the implication is thatmany teachers are either genuinely Humanistic intheir teaching intentions or would like to be rec-ognized as such.

2. A majority of Utilitarian, U, and Integrity of Dis-cipline, D, intents were expressed by 15 and 18per cent of the total number responding. Thesepercentages suggest that sigroficant numbers ofsocial studies teachers either favor these emphasesof intention or would prefer to be identified withthe particular answers suggested by thesecategories. It is felt that those with a dominantDisciplinary preference must have felt stronglyabout their preferences in view of the fears ex-pressed by non-respondents about possible nega-tive value judgments that might be made :boutDiscipline oriented intentions.

3. The totals given in 1 and 2 above (50 percentHumanistic, 15.5 percent Utilitarian, and 19 per-cent Discipline), total 84.5 percent of those re-sponding. Because there was no clearly dominantcommitment in some inventories, it may be as-sumed either that the instrument did not discrim-inate the intentions of the missing 15. percent orthat this percentage has no dominant intentionsor preferred not to reveal them. Whatever thereason, it appears that the Social Studies Inven-tory did, indeed, identify the dominant teachingintentions of most of those who completed theinstrument, that it can discriminate to some de-gree among the teaching intentions ofrespondents, and that the largest single group ofsocial stidues teachers either are or want to beknown as Humanistic in their intents.

4. The totals in the TMI continuum are also in-teresting when converted to percentages. Mostobvious is the total in Table 2, under theTransmissive category. Here only 47 of the 2088respondents indicated a majority of Transmissivecultural orientations. This equals only twopercent of the respondents and may suggest thatsocial studies teachers in the five New Englandstates either do not accept transmission of theculture as their dominant cultural task or thatthey do not want to be identified with this orien-tation. A follow-up of non-respondents in Ver-mont, consisting of field interviews, revealed that85 percent of the non-respondents interviewedshould be categorized as Transmissive teachers.Hence it may be the case that Transmissive teach-ers self-selected themselves out of the inventory.The very small percentage, of course, nv '-o

mean that the instrument did not identify teach-ers with this particular orientation and that teach-ers either "beat" the key and are hidden amongthe large numbers of dominantly Humanistic andInnovative teachers or may be found with the 9percent who did not express dominant TMI orien-tations.

5. The largest groups of teachers expressing dornin-'tilt cultural orientations were found to beModerative, or Innovative, in their majorityorientations. Forty-eight percent of the respon-dents were classified as Moderative and 41 per-cent as Innovative.

6. It appears that the Social Studies Inventory dididentify the dominant cultural orientations ofModerative and Innovative respondents and thatmost social studies teachers are dominantly orien-tated towards these categories. Either there arevery few Transmissive, T, social studies teachersor for some other reason nearly all respondentsdeliberately avoided the preferences that sug-gested Transmissive orientations.

H-U-D and T-M-I Interrelationships. Table 3, "Dom-inant 17eference Matrices," which fills page 16, is compli-cated appearing but is essentially easy to understand. Itlists the number of teachers with dominant intentions ineach of the HUD categories who, also, expressed dom-inant preferences along the TMI continuum. Figures aregiven in separate sub-tables for each, for the region, andfor the five New England states. This, in sub-table A,Maine, the number 1 in column H, row T, indicates thatone teacher in Maine was dominant in both Humanisticteaching irate- 'ions and Transmissive cultural orientations.Proceeding di the column, 73 Humanistic teachers ex-

t2c1 Me M, orientations, and 55 who weredominantly Human +lc v, ere also classified as Innovative,I, in their orientations. A total of 238 teachers in Maineexpressed dominant preferences, and of these 129 wereHumanistic, 55 were Utilitarian, and 54 were Discipline.Along the other scale, 9 were Transmissive, 151 Moder-ative, and 78 Innovative. The largest single block of re-spondents in Maine were what might be called H-M intheir dominant intentions and orientations. H-I, U-M, andD-M relationships also were characteristic of large groupsof teachers.

Similar figures may also be noted in each of the othersub-tables. Either H-M, H-I, U-M, or D-M or D-I appear tobe the most frequently occurring interrelationships amongteachers expressing joint dominancies.

These figures are subject to variable interpretations.However, it seems important to note that while some ofthe assumptions of the Committee were illustrated, otherswere not. For example, the H-I relationship as expected,proved to be strong. It occurred most frequently in threeof the five states in the region and in grand total. The H-I

14

relationship was assumed because to be committed toHumanistic goals is to be committed to universals whichare only partially exhibited in any culture. A commitmentto justice, for example, is a commitment which impliescultural reform hence an innovation with respect to theculture. Respondents who preferred an Integrity of Dis-cipline or D educational intentions tended to be basicallyModerative or to a lesser degree Innovative in their cultur-al orientations. This fieng supported the expectationthat academic subject centered teachers would not neces-sarily have any strong feeling regarding change to theirexisting culture.

It does appear that a larger proportion of Humanisticteachers tend to be Innovative in their orientations where-as those classified as Utilitarian or Discipline intentionedappear to be more Moderative. Thus, both regional andthe five state totals show that Humanistic teachers rankedI-M-T orientations first, second, and third, in that order,while Utilitarian and Discipline teachers ranked Modera-tive first, Innovative second, and Transmissive third. Theconsistency of this response throughout the sub-tables isnotable.

Using the figures in sub-table G, Table 3, for theRegion, the totals for each of H,U,D,T,M, and I columnswere converted to percentages of those responding. Sostated 60 percent of those responding were dominantlyHumanistic, 18 percent dominantly Utilitarian, and 22percent were Discipline intentioned. Along the otherclassification, 2.5 percent were dominantly Transmissive,53.4 percent Moderative, and 44 percent were Innovative.The corresponding cell percentages are also given.

If there were no interrelationships between teacherintentions (H, U, D) and orientations (T, M, I), the ap-proximate frequencies given in sub-table H should havebeen observed. For example, since 2.5% of the totalteachers (1546) were Transmissive, then aboni 2.5% ofthe total Humanistic teachers, Utilitarian teachers and Dis-cipline teachers should have been Transmissir t. Also, if60% of the total teachers were Humanistic we wouldhave expected 60% of the Moderative, Innovative, and'Transmissive teacher totals to occur in the M-H, I-H, andT-H cells respectively.

However, the observed results in sub-table G differedsignificantly from those expected in sub-table H. It wasfound that 1.4% of the Humanistic teachers were alsoTransmissive, 3.6% of the Utilitarian teachers were Trans-missive, and 4.7% of the Discipline teachers were Trans-missive. Along the Humanistic column, the results werethat 33% of the Transmissive teachers were also Humanis-tic, but 51 percent of the Moderative teachers wereHumanistic, and 72% of the Innovative teachers weredominantly Humanistic. Thus these percentages shouldhave all been 60%, if there were no relationship betweenthe H-U-D intentions and the T-M-I orientations. Observ-ing the nature of the differences in the observed and theexpected frequencies, in sub-tables G and H the following

summary statements about certain H-U-D, and T-M-1 in-terrelationships might be made.

1. Humanistic teachers are the least transmissive intheir cultural orientations. They seem to preferInnovation and to a lesser degree Moderation inrelation to the culture of their society.

2. Utilitarian teachers are less Transmissive in theircultural orientat.on. They prefer to Moderatetheir existing culture, with a lesser preference forplaying an Innovative role.

3. Discipline teachers are the most Transmissive intheir cultural orientations. They prefer, however,to Moderate their existing culture, with a lesserpreference for playing an Innovative role.

4. Transmissive teachers, on the other hand, tend tobe cor.ttary to Moderative and Innovative teach-ers in that they prefer Disciplinary intentions,with a lesser preference for Humanistic, and stillless for Utilitarian intentions.

5. Moderati e teachers largely prefer Disciplinary in-tentions v decreasing preference for Humanis-tic and MI tarian intentions.

6. Innovative teachers do not prefer Utilitarian orDiscipline intentions. They are overwhelminglyHumanistic ill intention - much more so thanModerative teachers.

Regional majority scores. Table 4 indicates the fre-quency distribution of majority scores for each of theH-U-D and T-M-I models. Relating back to Table 2, notethat the totals for H-U-D (1658) and for T -M -1 (1798) arethe same for the Region. However, Table 4 is concernedonly with the number of teachers who obtained a parti-cular score in order to be classified as dominant in thatparticular intention or orientation. For example, undercolumn H, the figure 1 at the top indicated that oneteacher selected 12 of the H preferences from the possible13 and was classified as dominantly H. Further down thecolumn, note that 271 of the H teachers scored 7 inorder to achieve this dominant classification. Data in eachof the other columns should be interpreted in the samemanner. Remember that the figures in the T-M-I columnsare somewhat higher because 23 items were related to theT -MI cs-mti nu um.

Means and standard deviations for each distributionare shown for descriptive purposes only.

It may appear odd that a very few teachers at thebottom of some columns were classified as dominant inthese intentions and orientations even with the score of 1.For example, in column H, at the bottom, one teacherwas classified H who scored (H-U-D) = (1-0-0). It mightbe argued that "dominance" in this instance is ratherloosely interpreted. On the other hand, it might also beargued that the teacher who felt strongly enough aboutthese items to omit all except the one where he did per-

15

Table 4

Frequency Distribution ofMajority Scores for the Regions

Teaching Intentions Cuitural OrientationsScore H U r Score T M I

23 1

22 1

220 419 1 1518 1 2 1917 5 2316 20 SO

15 59 6214 113 8413 3 150 119

1 12 2 12 218 1567 11 7 11 204 127

31 7 10 13 10 123 7377 5 10 9 15 9 48 53

172 14' 31 8 1 8 7 6271 62 76 7 7 2 1

289 146 149 6 6 1

120 78 95 5 5 26 1 ; 1 4 4 1

3 1 3 I 33 2 2

1 1

981 306 371 45 955 798

TOTALH+U+D= 1,658 TOTALT+M+I=1,798

M 6.87 6.08 6.25 10.18 12.04 12.270 1.38 .89 1.27 3.10 1.52 2.57

* Total Region = Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire

ceive a clear response was indeed dominant in that res-ponse. In any case, the classification is consistent with thesimple majority rule which was adopted for the study.

Data in column T, again emphasize the small numberof responses in this category as well as the uncertainty ofthe response of these teachers. Here, the relatively lowmean (10.18 for T compared with 12.04 for M and 12.27for I) and the relatively high standard deviation (3.10 forT compared with 1.52 for M and 2.57 for I) might reflectmore uncertainty of response. The small number of in-ventoiies in this category combined with di:, wide spreadof the scores result in an odd' pattern that not subjectto firm interpretation. While it might be interesting tospeculate about the possible meanings of T responses,such speculation would seem to be pointless in view ofthe small total classified in this category.

Table 3: DondmInt Preference Matrices*

A. Maine

H U D TOTAL

T 1 3 5 9

M 73 44 34 151-.1.-

I 55 8 15 78

TOTAL 129 55 54 238

C. New Hampshire

H U D TOTAL

T 2 0 0 2

M 80 32 22 134

I 92 15 10 117

TOTAL 174 47 32 253

E. Vermont

H U D TOTAL

T 0 0 0 0

M 15 4 5 24

I 16 2 1 19

TOTAL 31 6 6 43

G. Region: Observed Values(Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts)

H U D TOTAL

T 13 10 16 39.8% .6% 1.0% 2.5%

M 423 191 212 82627.4% 12.4% 13.7% 53.4%

492 78 111 68131.8% 5.0% 7.2% 44.0%

928 279 339 1,54660.0% 18.0% 22.0% 100.0%

16

B. Massachusetts

H U D TOTAL

T 10 7 11 28

M 270 115 156 541

I 345 55 86 486

TOTAL 625 177 253 1,055

D. Rhode Island

1-1 U D TOTAL

T 0 1 1 2

M 17 5 9 31

I 13 3 6 22

TOTAL 30 9 16 55

F. The Five New England States

H U D TOTAL

T 13

_

11 17 41

M 455 200 226 881

I 521 83 118 722

TOTAL 989 294 361 1,644

H. Region: Expected Values Given Independence

H U D TOTAL

T 23.4 7.0 8.6 391.50% .45% .55% 2.5%

M 495.7 149.1 181.1 82632,1% 9.6% 11.7% 53.4%

408.7 122.9 149.3 68126.4% 7.9% 9.7% 44.0%

928 279 339 1,54660.0% 18.0% 22.0% 100.0%

Figure: 2 through 7 illustrate graphically the samedata that are presented in Table 4. A separate graph wasconstructed to correspond with the appropriate column inTable 4. Thus, Figure 2 corresponds with column H inTable 4, Figure 3 corresponds with column U and so on.These graphs are included for the benefit of those whomay perceive comparisons more easily in this mannerrather than by studying columns of numbers. Indeed, Fig-ure 5, which illustrates the number of teachers who wereclassified dominant at each level for Transmissive culturalorientations, does seem to compare more dramaticallywith the ot;Eer Figures than the same data given in tabularform in Table 4.

Further statistical analysis. A comprehensive statis-tical analysis was undertaken in terms of each dominantintention (H-U-D) and the corresponding degree of domin-ance for each orientation (T-M-1). The purpose of thisanalysis was to discover if there were any provable pat-terns of interrelationship between specific educational in-tentions and corresponding cultural orientations. Forexample, ;ould Humanistic teachers who were also domi-nantly Innovative show a different pattern of responsefrom Humanistic teachers whc were dominantly Modera-tive? A different pattern of response might have beenshown if H-I teachers had scored below the mean in the 1category while H-M teachers scored above the mean in theM category. This effort resulted in 18 complex tableswhich illustrate all possible relationships in both numer-ical totals and in percentages. These tables are not in-cluded in this final report both because of their complex-ity and because no patterns were noted which illustratedsignificant relationships. Although a vast amount of datawere included in the tables, the interrelationships thatmight have been discovered simply were not in evidence.For illustratio.i, note that Table 4, column H, shows that77 teachers scored 9 in the H category. The further analy-sis showed that 46 of these teachers were dominantlyInnovative and scored from 9.20 in this category, andthat 22 were dominantly Moderative, scoring from 10-18in this category. None of the H teachers who scored 9were dominantly Transmissive. Again, while the datamight be interesting to speculate about, no solid infer-ences or conclusions can be drawn from these data.

It does appear, however, that as intensity of conLnit-ment increased, as measured by higher dominant scoreswithin categories, that the relationships noted previouslytended to be revealed more clearly. As noted above,strongly Humanistic teachers never exemplified Transmis-sive cultural oricntations. Of 13 teachers with dominantlyTransmissive orientations and dominantly Humanisticintentions, (T-H), only 2 scored above the mean for the Hcategory. Of 10 teachers who were dominantly Trans-missive and Utilitarian, only 2 scored above the mean for

17

the Utilitarian category. However, among 14 teachers whowere dominantly Transmissive and Discipline centered, 8scored above the mean in the Discipline category. It ap-pears likely that teachers who are Transmissive in theirorientations and who are also Disciplinarian in their inten-tions, may tend to be stronger in their Disciplinarian con-cepts.

Summary

The Social Studies Inventory with standard instruc-tions was completed by 2088 teachers in five of the NewEngland states. Of this umber 1768 were found to showdominancies for the H-U-D categories, and 1906 showeddominancies for T-M-1 categories.

An effort was made to discover why the percentageof return varied from state to state. In general, the higherproportion of returns are believed to have resulted from acombination of factors; chiefly continuity of personnelthroughout the planning and implementation of the In-ventory, availability of project personnel throughout thestudy, and energetic administrative efforts.

Although tentative, the conclusions stated earlier inthis chapter appear to be tenable. The Inventory did ap-pear to discriminate among the dominant teaching in-tentions (HU-D) of most of those who completed it, andapparently the instrument also identified the dominantcultural orientation of at least the mederative and in-novative categories in the T-M-I continuum. Either theteachers who completed the Inventory are authenticallyidentified according to certain educational intents and cul-tural orientations, or they selected responses to indicatecategories with which they preferred to be identified.

Interrelationships among 11-U-D and T-M-I preferenceswere investigated, and it appears that humanistic teachersare more innovative in their orientations than are socialutility and discipline teachers and that social utility anddiscipline teachers are more moderative than humanisticteachers. The transmissive, cultural orientation was re-jected or avoided by nearly ad those who responded.

Analysis failed to reveal further patterns of interrela-tionship except for the possibility that those who arctransmissive also tend to be concerned with disciplinegoals. This should be an area of exploration for tutureinvestigators in view of the fact that 85 percent of thenon-respondents interviewed in a follow-up study wereclassified as transmissive in the cultural orientation anddiscipline oriented in intention.

I. These files represent the result of another NEEAPproject designed to establish a State InformationSystem comprising records for each school and eachteacher in New England.

CHAPTER THREE

IN-DEPTH STUDY: THE ANTECEDENT TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRESelection of Teachers

The original design of the assessment called for 36teachers to be selected for intensive study during the in-depth phases of the project. Selected teachers would in-clude only (how whose scores on the Social Studies t riven-tory demonstrated clear-cut dominants in one of the li-U-Dor T-M-I categories. h was expected that for an 11-U-Dselection the teacher would score at least nine out of the 13items in a particular category. For a T-M-I selection thescore was set at 13 of the 23 items. Assuming equal re-presentation from each of the six slates, and six teachersidentified with each of the categories of intent or orienta-lion, the total of 36 teachers was anticipated.

When Connecticut withdrew from the study, the antici-pated number was reduced to 30. Later, when it was foundthat significant numbers of Transmissive orientationssimply were not obtained, this category was deleted. Also,it should be remembered that participation in the in-depthstudy was voluntary and that even some of those finallyselected might have been expected to decline.

Eventually it was cided to select the 'most domi-nant" teachers available in each of the II-UD and M4categories, with due regard for reasonable geographic distri-bution, but not with the requirement of state representa-tion. Teachers were to be teaching elewrith grade, UnitedStates history to average ability classes. Some of theseinvited to participate, declined. The reason given mostfrequent:), was concern for the intensity of the proposedin-depth analysis. There was also some hesitation to beexamined and observed and particularly to allow studentsto be examined by an outside agency.

The final selection included 26 teachers: nine fromMassachusetts, live each from Rhode Island and Maine, fourfrom New Hampshire, and three from Vermont. MI exceptthree me( or exceeded the minimum degree of dominanceestablished for selection. The three excepticns were in-cluded for geographical reasons even though they wereclassified U with scores of eight. All of ti.e others scorednine or higher within the 11-U-D continuum or 13 or higherin the M-I. The final group included seven in the humanisticcategory, four each in the social utility and discipline cate-gories, five who were dominantly moderative, and six whowere classified as innovative. The dominant category ruleadopted for the New England phase of the study classifiedevh of these teachers in both intents and orientations. Onthis basis. 1 I were Hi. eight were D-M, three were 11-M,and two each were U-1 and U,M.

Characteristics of Teachers and Schools Selected

The twenty-six teachers selected for indepth study

/5/19

ranged in age from 22 to 64. Their teaching experience alsovaried widely, from one to forty-two years. Sixty-five per-cent had been in their present position since beginning theirteaching. Most of the group had taken a university coursewithin the last three years. A few had not had a course for(en years or more. Thirteen of the teachers had earnedMasters degrees, nine had Bachelors degrees. One had somecourse work toward a Masters, and two had completed overthirty hours toward a Doctorate. Twenty-one were men,five were women. All of the teachers taught primarilyjuniors or seniors. The size of the schools involved in thein-depth study also varied. One exceeded 2500 in enroll-ment, four were between 1500-2000, nine were between1000.1500, seven were between 500-1000, and five wereless than 500. Thirteen of the schools were classified assuburban, eight were rural, and five were urban.

The Antecedent Questionnaire

DescriptionThis instrument consisted of (en open-ended questions designed to elicit teachers' perceptions ofthe beginning factors most likely to influence student out-comes. Responses to each question were tabulated, and theresults are discussed in detail in the following pages. Ingeneral, the open-ended nature of the questionnaire led tosome unnecessary misunderstandings which might havebeen avoided if an objective forma( had been adopted. Forexample, one question asked for the teacher's attitudetoward the ability groups he works with. This was inter-preted to mean either a preference toward certain types ofpupils or an attitude toward ability grouping as an aspect ofschool organization. The two inter} ietations are quite different in their implications. Another question asked whatoutside influences affect the teacher's classroom perfor-mance. At least six of the respondents interpreted this invery personal terms, citing their own "liberal" attitudes,(heir own academic or professional preparation, (heir ownoutside reading, or their own extensive experiences.

The leading nature of some of the questions also wasunfortunate. One question asked for the means used by theteacher to keep abteast of changes in his professional field.The assumption was that these teachers do keep abreast oftheir profe;sional fields, an assumption which, even if true,should not have been implied in the question. Anotherquestion asked the teacher to name major limitations thatinhibited the full performance of his duties. Here, again. theimplication is that such limitations exist and ought to benamed. Only four of the respondents answered "none" tothis question.

These criticisms could easily luve been avoided byusing an objectified, multiple-choice instrument with. of

course, space for free responses if none of the choicesfitted a particular situation.

AdministrationIt was expected that interviewerswould ask the questions and record, as specifically as pos-sibl:, the answers of respondents. However, in some in-stances the respondents were handed the questions andasked to write the answers. "This teacher feels" suggeststhat the interview technique was followed. "I feel" suggeststhat the teacher wrote the answer himself.

Some evidence indicates that interviewers tended tomodify certain questions so as to I, Alit the number ofopen-ended responses. For example, in one state it appearsthat a question relating to the teacher's relationships withhis colleagues had been redefined to separate social fromprofessional relationships.

Probably these variations from standard procedure didnot affect the results of the questionnaire, but they rementioned to provide an accurate description of how thisphase of the assessment was carried out.

InterpretationAs with any prose or free response mea-sure, when the instrument is not objective it is necessary toobjectify or categorize the responses in some manner.Working together, the project writer and one of the statisti-cians read all 26 responses to the first question and agreedon a number of categories within which all the answerscould be classified and tabulated. The same procedure wasfollowed for the remaining nine questions. Then, workingindependently, each tabulated all of the responses for allquestions within the agreed-upon categories. Finally, thetwo tables were compared for consistency of scoring. Ofthe 260 talleys reco'ded on each of the separate tables, nomore than a dozen specific differences of interpretationwere noted. Several of these resulted from simple error, andthe remainder were resolved by agreement. The generalresults are believed to be as objective an interpretation aswas possible.

Results of the Antecedent Questionnaire

The results are given in the same order as the questionsin the questionnaire. Categories of response ate given foreach question. In a few instances actual answers are in-cluded for purposes of illustration. (Perhaps it should beemphasized here that none of the participating teachers areor will be identified by any person connected with theproject.) The questionnaires completed by specific teachershave been destroyed. and analyses of work done in specificclasses as part of the in-depth phase of this study are notavailable for examination.

1. How free does the teacher feel he is to control hisclassroom actrritiesP

Met categories of response were established for thisquestion: (I) Complete Freedom. (2) Relative Freedom.and 0) Restricted Freedom. The overwhelming responsewas one of complete freedom, 24 of the 26 responses being

20

so classified. Words and phrases such as "complete," "abso-lutely no interference," "all the freedom I expect," "veryfree," "no pressure," and so on, appeared throughout theresponses. Only one answer was classified as relatively freeand then only because the respondent used the word"relatively" to describe his situation. One was classifiedrestricted for the same reason. The teacher stated that hisfreedom had been restricted because, oddly enough, histeaching methods were considered to be too free.

2. What outside influences affect the teacher's class-room performance?

It was particularly difficult to categorize the responsesto this question because of the widely varying interpreta-tions given to the question itself. llowever, four generaltypes of response appeared dominant. (1) This categoryincluded what were termed the "usual" responses, includingthe influences of parents, administrators, and state require-ments. (2) Special answers were tabulated together in onecategory. These included such influences as the economiccondition of the community, local controversy, overly pro-te:tive parents, and college town atmosphere. (3) "None"or no outside influences constituted a dearly identifiablegroup of answers. (4) "Wrong answer" constituted a cate-gory where the teacher clearly misinterpreted the questionand gave a trivial or an irrelevant response.

Five of the respondents replied in what was describedas the usual manner. Six named some special local outsideinfluence that affected their performance. Nine, the largestsingle block, replied "none" or stated that no outsideinfluences or pressures affected their work. Finally, sixpeople answered the question by naming personal or inter-nal influences that could scarcely be categorized except as"wrong" answers. For example, "The Teacher ...feels thatthe principal outside influence is the liberal attitude ac-quired during her courses in the school of education."These responses were felt to be internal lather than exter-nal. hence, incorrect responses to the sense of the question.

1. Does the community support the aims of theteacher's instruction?

This question was relatively easy to categorize since 19teachers answered flatly "yes" and in some cases providedevidence of community support. Only one teacher replied"no," while four mentioned partial or limited support oftheir aims. A number of perceptive respondents commentedthat the aims were not really known by the generalcommunity since aims are professional in nature. However.in general, it appeared that programs and hence, by infer-ence. their aims were supported. Two teachers fell into afourth category of simply not knowing if their aims weresupported.

.1. Does the feather have duress to the instractionolmaterials he nemls for the full rfrpnnonec of hisduties?

Three classes of response were sufficient for this ques-tion. First, those who answered affirmatively without quali-fication: second, those who replied "no" or who stated thatinstructional materials were very limited and, third, thosewho indicated some imitations, but not severe ones. Eigh-teen of the 26 respondents replied "yes" to this question.Only two answered "no". Six felt a mild lack of accessibleinstructional materials.

5. What is the teacher's attitude toward the abilitygroups the teacher works with?

The responses to this question were very difficult tocategorize because, as stated, the question allows for mul-tiple interpretations. First, it was interpreted in terms ofwhether or not the teacher prefers to work with pupils ofparticular levels of ability. A second interpretation had todo with the type of ability grouping preferred by theteacher. The former interpretation relates to the teacher'sattitude toward pupils. The latter indicates his opiniontoward school organization for instruction. With this inmind, five categories were finally established within whichto tally the responses. (1) Those who stated that they hadno preference, that they liked all pupils. Ten respondentsfell into this category. (2) Four teachers who said that theypreferred to work with top level ability groups. (3) Thosewho want or like some form of ability grouping. Fiverespondents were placed with this group. (4) Five otherrespondents prefer or want heterogeneous grouping. Two ofthese argued that ability grouping is especially inappropri-ate in the social studies where the processes of democracyshould permeate all instruction. (5) Two responses wereconsidered to be inappropriate to the sense of the question.Both of these merely described their pupils without ex-pressing a preference.

6. What means does the teacher use to keep abreast ofthe changes In his profeisional /told?

Only three basic responses were given for this question.First, were those who mentioned what might have reason-ably been expected, attending conferences, reading aca-demic or professional journals, membership in organiu-tions, and so forth. Neatly all of the 16 teachers placed inthis category mentioned "reading" first. Second were tworespondents who mentioned college courses or a collegecontact. Third were eight teachers who listed both collegecourses of degrees and the usual responses listed with thefirst category. Probably e good many of those placed in thefirst category also could 'lave listed college contacts butsimply forgot to mention them.

7. Ow is the relationship with his colleauct?As might have been predicted, the responses to this

question fell into only two classes. Overwhelmingly. theseteachers believed that their relationships with colleagues ateexcellent. Only three felt some kind of limited relationship.The other 23 defined their eleelkot relatiowhips with such

21

words as "open", "cooperative", "respect", "close ","friendly" and other similar terms.

8. Does the teacher feel that he is adequately pre-pared to deal with the content of his field?

Predictably, nearly all of these teachers said "yes" tothis question, 23 answering in some highly affirmative man-ner. Interestingly, two responses classed as affirmative atfirst appeared negative. That is, both replies stated that ateacher never is prepared fully to deal with the content ofthe social studies, a content which always is changing andexpanding. Adequate knowledge requires continual study.These perceptive responses were seen as those of teacherswho most likely are well prepared. The three negativeanswers should be described. Two were by teachers whofelt the need of further study in specific social sciences,geography and economics, in order to gain a better under-standing of history. The third was that of a teacher whoseacademic major was in an entirely different academic disci-pline from that normally regarded as preparation for socialstudies.

9. What are the ma /or limitations the teacher feelsinhibit the full performance of his ditties?

Lack of time and extra class duties were cited in answerto this question as the major limitation affecting full perfor-mance. Eight answers were classed in this category. Sevenothers mentioned large class size andfor lack of facilities. Athird category included answers related to personal or pro-fessional limitations, such as lack of knowledge in relatedsubject areas or problems in motivating pupils. Four teach-ers fell into this category. Four also answered the questionwith the word "none" indicating that they feel no majorlimitations. Finally, the answers of three respondents sug-gested lack of support for their work as an inhibiting factor.

10. 111/bat factors have contributed to the success of theteacher's performance?

This question resulted in a wide variety of answers.Thirteen respondents attributed their success to good rela-tionships with pupils or sincere liking for pupils. Six othersmentioned good relationships with colleagues or administra-tion. Three cited good academic preparation. Two listedgood working conditions. One mentioned sound profes-sional preparation and the final respondent was not sure.

Relationships of Intentionsto Outcomes

The findings of the Antecedent Teacher Questionnaireappear to result in straightforward reporting that does notlend itself to further statistical analysis. Pot example, thefact that 24 of the 26 respondents felt completely free tocontrol their classroom activities is a fact that speaks foritself. it would be meaningless to speculate about the11-1343 intents of M-1 orientations of the one teacher whofelt restri;ted. By and large this same comment applies to

the rest of the questionnaire. The numbers are so small thatwherever 16 or more responses fell into a single category,there was not much left to analyze.

However, there were five questions where it was agreedthat further analysis of the responses in terms of H-U-D and

dominance might show whether or not certain cate-gories of dominance were related to particular categories ofresponse. Table 5 illustrates the distribution of H-U-D andM-1 scores between certain categories of response in Ques-tions 2,5, and 10.

Table 5

Responses to Certain Questions on theAntecedent Teacher Questionnaire

Classified by H-U-D and M-I Dominance.

A. - Outside Influences that Affect the Teacher'sClassroom Performance

H U D Total M I TOTAL

Or 6 0 5 11 7 4 II

(2) 4i

3 2 9 5 4 9

TOTAL 10 3 7 20 12 8

-20

*11 respondents who named any influence (1) vs. 9respondents who specified none (2).

B. - The Teacher's Attitude Toward Ability Groups

H Ug

T

D-

Total NI I TOTAL

Or 6 I..-

3 101

5 5 10.Or 7 2 5 14 8 6 14

TOTAL 13 3 8 24 13 11 24

*10 respondents who expressed no preference (I) vs.14 who preferred some type of grouping of pupils (2).

C. - Factors that Contributed to the Teacher's Success-H U D Total M I TOTAL

Or 10 0 3 13 5 8 13

(2)* 4 4 5 13 7 6 13-.

TOTAL 14 4 8 26 12 14

.26

13 respondents who emphasized good pupil relation-ships (I) vs. 13 who attributed their success to someother reason (2).

22

Subtable A contrasts the number of H-U-D and tv1.1teachers among II respondents who named an outsideinfluence that affected their classroom performance withthe number of H-U-D and teachers among nine respon-dents who specified none. Obviously, with approximatelyequal numbers in the H, M, and I columns, no significancecan be attached to this distribution. Even though allthree of the U teachers fell into the bottom row, thenumber is felt to be too small for generalization.

Subtable B contrasts H-U-D and distributionsamong ten respondents who expressed no preferencesamong pupils, with the distribution among 14 teacherswho specified some type of grouping. Again, this is a

nice, even distribution that indicates no specific relation-ships.

Subtable C contrasts the number of H-U-D andteachers among 14 respondents with pupils or liking forpupils, with the dominant concerns of 13 teachers whoattributed their success to some other factor. Again, the D,14, and I columns suggest no relationships. Althoughall four of the U teachers attributed their success to some-thing other than good pupil relationships, one hesitates togeneralize on the basis of this small number. The totals inthe H column may be a different matter. Here it appearsfairly safe to conclude that humanistic teachers do tend toattribute their success to their liking for pupils or theirgood relationships with pupils.

An additional count was made of the number of H, U,D, NI, and I teachers among 18 respondents who felt thatthey did have access to the instructional materialsneeded for full performance. The count was almost exactlyaccording to chance, and no relationships were indicated.Among those answering the question in this manner werefour 11, three U, three I), four M, and four I.

A final count was made of the number of H scores ineach of the five categories of response established for Ques-tion 9, re'ating to factors seen by the teacher as inhibitinghis full performance. Once again, humanistic teachers weredistributed throughout five categories, and no significancewas indicated.

The decision to depart from the original design's inclu-sion of a standardized achievement test, and the absence ofreliable evidence of change in the student outcomes mea-sures used, prevented an analysis of the relationship ofantecedents to student outcomes. It had been expected thatboth the antecedents and classroom interaction patterns ofthe successful teachers' could be analyzed to determinewhat relationships existed between these factors and teach-er success.

The Social Studies InventoryA Comparison of Teachers and Administrators

In order to determine he possible effects of conflictor humony between the ,Mentions of teachers and their

administrators, the dominant intents and orientations ofthe teachers who participated in the in-depth study werecompared with those of their immediate school adminis-trators. In smaller schools this was the principal. while inlarger schools the questionnaire was completed by thechairman of the Social Studies department.

In order to determine what the effects of conflict ofintention and orientation between teachers and their ad-ministrators might be, the antecedent questionnaire resultswere compared with Social Studies Inventory scores forboth groups. The teacher referred to earlier, who replied tothe question by saying he felt restricted, and who hadbeen criticized for allowing his students too much free-dom, turned out to be a dominantly innovative teacherworking under a dominantly transmissive principal. Theeffect of their opposite orientation toward the culturemay have been a factor influencing this teacher's sense ofrestriction. In response to question three (relationships tocolleagues) those teachers who indicated the existence ofproblems turned out to be teachers who had cultural ori-entations contrasting with their administrators. Responsesto question nine (role of the system in inhibiting teach-ers), two of the three inhibited teachers exhibited culturalorientations which contrasted with those of their adminis-trators.

While the number of individuals included in the sam-ple is insufficient to support any generalization, the evi-dence available seems to suggest that even though teachersand administrators with similar teaching intentions aretypically found together (most teachers had administra-tors with similar dominant intentions) where there is aconflict of cultural orientations, these may be grounds forlack of harmony in teachers' perceptions of his role com-pared with that of his administrator.

Summary

Teachers selected for the in-depth phases of the assess-ment included teachers whose scores on the teacher inven-tory exhibited the most dominant commitment within eachof the H-U-D and /4-1 categories and who were also teachingeleventh grade, United States history to classes of averageability. After due attention to a reasonable geographicdistribution, a list of potential participants was prepared.from this list 26 teachers agreed to participate.

23

The first phase of the in-depth study consisted of theadministration of an Antecedent Teacher Questiornaire,largely given by interview. This instrument included tenopen-ended questions designed to discover the teacher'sperceptions concerning certain aspects of the teaching en-vironment. Although some of the questions may have beenmisunderstood, the general results suggest that the group asa whole feel free to control their own classroom activities.For the most part, they believe that their communitiessupport their instructional aims. In general, they are satis-fied with the accessibility of instructional materials. As agroup, they do considerable reading. state that they partici-pate in the affairs of professional and academic associ-ations and continue to lake college courses. They believethat they enjoy excellent relationships with their col-leagues. They feel adequately prepared to deal with thecontent of their field. Success in teaching, they state, re-sult from good relationships either with pupils or withothers.

Few consistent relationships were detected betweenquestionnaire responses and the category models of teach-ers intentions and cultural orientations. However, it doesappear that humanistic teachers tend to attribute theirsuccess to liking for pupils and/or good relationships withpupils to a far greater degree than do teachers in the othercategories of dominance. Finally, although the number ofSocial Utility teachers was too small for conclusions, it wasnoted that all of (hose reponding attributed their success tofactors other than good relationships with pupils. All ofthose responding to another question stated that someoutside influence did affect their classroom performance.Further research, centered on the perceptions of domi-nantly Social Utility teachers, might prove fruitful.

When the cultural orientation of teachers and theiradministrators were compared, divergent orientations werefrequently found associated with a sense of restriction andthe role of the "system" as an inhibiting factor.

It was not possible to assess the impact of the tenantecedent factors on student outcomes as originally in-tended.

1. Successful teachers were assumed to be thosewhose students exhibited outcomes consistent withtheir intentions for them. The outcome measuresare described in Chapters IV and V.

CHAPTER FOUR

INTERACTION ANALYSIS: PHASE III OF THE ASSESSMENT

Interaction Analysis: A Brief Review

Design Objectives. In choosing to analyze the ver-bal interaction patterns of classrooms, the committee wasled by two insights of recent educational research. Thefirst has been expressed most succinctly by Gil Boyer,'"It is surprising to find that how teachers say what theysay appears to be a better predictor of change in pupilbehavoir than anything else educational research hasturned up to date." The second is derived from the workof Ned A. Flanders who has demonstrated that the dyna-mics of interpersonal exchange between teachers and stu-dents are typically revealed through their verbal inter-action patterns. Verbal patterns rnake rather dull readingby themselves, but when taken as evidence of the kind ofencounter occurring between a teacher and his students,they form an important learning variable to which studentoutcomes may be related.

Previous studies in interaction analysis have shownthat verbal patterns are highly indicative of the kind ofencounter occurring within the classroom. But moreimportantly, variations in the classroom dynamics revealedby such analysis have positively correlated with importantdifferences in both student cognitive outcomes and stu-dent attitudes. Through this study the committee was Icclby one basic questio, > > the social dynamics of theclassroom hold the key .o better understanding of thevariables which affect student attitudes and achievement?

Evidence available in the literature of human relationsstudies tended to strengthen the suspicion of the com-mittee that the social studies objectives identified ashumanistic and social utility might be most affected bythe interpersonal dynamics of classroom relationships. Theacquisition of skills necessary for effective management ofpeople and social situations, depends particularly on theopportunity for participating in various kinds of socialencounter and an exploration of their effects. The extentto which course outcomes termed Discipline Integritymight be influenced by classroom dynamics was notknown, yet this too seemed a fruitful object of inquiry.1

Definition and Caution. As was described in Chap-ter One, interaction analysis is a method of recording andthen analyzing the verbal communication patterns occur-ring within a classroom. Included is talk by teachers tostudents, talk between students and the teacher, and stu-dents with other students. Consequently, classroom. obser-vations were scheduled on days when the primary classactivity consisted of verbal communication rather thansuch activities as watching a film, doing library work, tak-ing a field trip. or silent reading and study. This is men-

24

tioned to emphaLIze that the ,:oncerns of Phase III werewith the dynamics revealed through verbal interactionsrather than with other dimensions of the learning exper-ience such as course content, or resource materials.

The interaction occurring in selected classrooms wascharacterized under ten specific categories of interaction.The percentage of time spent in categories, for example,lecturing, represents a portion of the classroom time de-voted to this type of verbal activity. Analysis of Cie speci-fic content of talk was beyond the scope of assessment,although it might provide an interesting area of investiga-tion in some future research.

Following standard procedures, the trained observer isable to record at three-second intervals the verbal trans-itions occurring during the entire class period, to describethe communication flow within the classroom, and to re-cord the purposes and activities of the class within a num-ber of time use categories.

Interaction categories. The ten basic categories de-rived from the work of Ned A. Flanders were followed bythe observers during this study. These categories consistof specific types of verbal interaction, as follows:

I. TEACHER TALKA. Indirect Influence

I. ACCEPTS FEELING: accepts and clari-fies the feeling tone of the students in a

nonthreatening manner. Feelings may bepositive or negative. Predicting or recall-ing feelings are included.

2. PRAISES OR ENCOURAGES: praises orencourages student action of behavior.Jokes that release tension. lot at the ex-pense of another individual, noddinghead or saying "um hm?" or "go on" areincluded.

3. ACCEPTS OR USES IDEAS OF STU-DENT: clarifying, building, or developingideas suggested by a student. As a teach-er brings more of in own ideas intoplay.

4. ASKS QUESTIONS: asking a questionabout content or procedure with the in-tent that a student answer.

B. niter: influence5. LECTURING: giving facts or opinions

about content or procedure; expressinghis own ideas, asking rhetorical quest!

6. GIVING DIRECTIONS: directions, com-mands, or orders to which a student isexpected to comply.

7. CRITICIZING OR JUSTIFYINGAUTHORITY: statements intended tochange student behavior from nonaccept-able to acceptable pattern; reprimandinga student; staling why the teacher is

doing what he is doing.

II. STUDENT TALK8. STUDENT TALK - RESPONSE: a stu-

dent makes a predictable response to ateacher. Teacher initiates the contact ofsolicits student statement and sets limitsto what the student says.

9. STUDENT TALK - INITIATION: talkby students which they initiate. Unpre-dictable statements in repsonse toteacher.

Ill. CATCHALL10. SILENCE OR CONFUSION: pauses,

short periods of silence and periods ofconfusion in which communication can-not be understood by the observer.

Observational procedures. - Fourteen observers un-dertook an intensive three-day training program in theclasses of Needham High School, Massachusetts. Not onlywere they, in general, satisfied that they had mastered thetechnique sufficiently for the purposes of the assessment,but a reliability check also indicated a 1-igh consistency ofresponse for observations of the same classes.

During observations, the technique requires that atally be entered in the appropriate category once everythree seconds. Thus, if a teacher lectured and continuedto lecture, tallies were entered appropriately until a trans-ition occurred. This is mentioned to illustrate the largenumber of tallies that resulted from these observations. Ina typical 50-minute period, approximately 1,000 entrieswould have been made, since each teacher was observed forfive classes, with the exception of New Hampshire, wherethree visits were made, mote than 100,000 saturate bits ofinformation were acquired.

All observations were recorded on Digitek computerforms and edited for completeness and accuracy by ob-servers before processing.

Interaction patterns. - After collection of data onthe communication flow within each of the classrooms,patterns were studied through the use of interaction mat-rices using the ten-category Flanders System. In the con-struction of the matrices each of the ten categories iscalled a slate. and the change from one state to another iscalled a tramiti.m. Fot example, if a teacher asks a ques-tion (category No. 4). and a pupil responds (category No.8). it may be said that a 4- 8 transition occurs. Such a4-8 tranCtion is recorded by placing a mark in row 4.column 8. A "matrix." of course. is merely a graph fortabulating some type of information. Figure 8 illustrates a

25

Figure 8. A Hypothetical Interaction Matrix

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Teacher acceptsfeelings

Teacher praises 2

Teacher acceptsideas

Teacher questions 4

3

Lecture S

Directions 6

I ;cism 7

Student response 8

Initiated student 9talk

Silence orconfusion

simple hypotheticaltransitions.

In Figure 8 each of the ten categories appears beforea row of blocks and at the top of an equivalent column.The hypothetical tallies indicated here would be inter-preted as follows.

The large number of tallies at the intersection of RowS and Column 5 show that the teacher was lecturing. Thesingle tally in Cell 5-4 shows that he interrupted hislecture to ask a question. He moved from lecturing RowS to asking a question Column 4. After this, a studentresponded, as indicated by the tally in Cell 4-8. Thetransition was from Row 4, leacher asking a question toColuilin 8, student response. At this point the teacherpraised the pupil for his answer, and a tally was enteredin Cell 8-2. The transition had moved from Row 8,student response, to Column 2, praise by the teacher.Then the teacher assumed lecturing as sh'wn by the tallyin Cell 2 -S. Ile had moved from praise Row 2 back tolecture Column 5. He continued to lecture for more thanthree seconds. and this was interpreted as a return to Cell5-5, from lecturing to extended lecturing. From lecturingRow 5, however, the teacher was interrupted by an un-predictable student statement. The transition moved fromRow 5 to Column 9, student initiated talk, and thus thetally in Cell 5-9. The find transition was from Row 9.the unpredictable student talk. to Column 10. confusion,and there is a lone tally in Cell 9- 10. Had the confusionlasted for more than three seconds. additional tallieswould have appeared in Cell 10-10 indicating a transitionfrom confusion to extended silence or confusion.

For the purposes of statistical analysis. the matrices

10

.1111.1.

interaction matrix for a series of

from a single class period (during which the class was inone to five different time use categories) were combinedand from this data values for interaction variables werecomputed as described below.

Statistical Analysis

Interaction Analysis Matrix Interpretation. - By thistime the project had gathered a relatively large amount ofdata from which many variables might have been mea-sured. Hundreds of hypotheses could have been namcdand many thousands of ways devised to test these hypo-theses. Obviously, in both Phase III and Phase IV thestatisticians needed the counsel of the Committee and itsconsultants in order to identify the important relation-ships to be investigated. This was necessary both to ex-clude irrelevant analysis and also to insure that the

original intents of the study were carried out.Twenty-two characteristics of the matrices were

selected as input variables for analysis in relation to datafrom other phases of the project. They were selectedbecause in previous interaction analyses they had beenshown to be related most frequently to variations in student outcomes and were therefore thought to be mostlikely factors influencing the social studies course out-comes selected for study by the project. These variablesare &noted as T Variables and are defined and inter-preted as follows:

T 1. The sum of the totals of Columns 1

through 7 equals percent of time the teachertalks.

T 2. The sum (..f the totals of Columns 8 and 9equals percent of time the students talk.

T 3. 5-5 Ctn.-High frequencies indkate teach-er provides information for extended peri-ods of time and teacher is deliberate in hiscommunication.

T 4. 2-2 Cell-High frequencies indicate teach-er extends his praise statements. Longerpraise statements often ilclude the criteriafor praise.

T 5. 6-6 Cell-High frequencies indkate longer,more compk'e directions, which 'ften in-clude reasons or explanations about how todo something so that the students can pro-ceed with their work in a more independentfashion.

T 6. 3 -3 Cell-Hrgh frequencies indicate theteacher develops the ideas of the studentwith considerable care.

T 7. 8-R and 9.9 Cells. High frequencies indi-cate that the students have an opportunityto develop their own ideas.

T 8. 10.10 Cell High frequencies together withhigh criticism may indkate resistance. lack

26

of cooperation, or indifference. Togetherwith more favorable questions and studenttalk, they may indicate thoughtful pauses.

T 9. 7-7 Ce/L-Nigh frequencies may indicateteacher anger or lack of control, whichmay be reflecting a failure to interest pu-pils.

TIO. The area of the intersection of Columns1-3 and Rows 1-3.-High frequencies indi-cate the teacher's concern for positive mo-thmtion and reward.

TII. Area of the intersection of Columns 6-7and Rows 6- 7.-High frequencies, particu-larly in the 6-7 and 7-6 transition cellsusually indicate a sequence where the teach-er gives directions, the students resist, theteacher criticizes, then gives more directions,and the students resist even more, etc. Theabove sequence, in conjunction with loadingin the 6 -9 cell, often indicates overt studentresqance to teacher directions.

T12. Both items 10 and 11 indicate teacher's at-tention to process problems of classroommanagement and control, one more positivethan the other.

T13. Area cross formed by Rows 4 -S and Col.unms 4-5.-Reflects emphasis on subjectmatter and the content of instruction.

T14. Cells 4-8 and 8-4.-High loading in thesetwo cells indicates a short answer drill situ-ation.

T15. Columns 1-2 through 7-2. -indicatepraise buried in teacher talk, which is not adirect reaction :o student talk.

TI6. Cobur's 8-2 through 9-2. -Indicate praisefollowing student talk, which is generallymore positive than praise as described initem 15.

TI 7. Area of the intersection of Columns I-4and Rows 8-9. Indicates a sensitive teach-er response to student talk.

T18. 4-8 Cell-Indicates teacher is asking fact-finding or narrow question leading to a pre-dktabk student response.

T19. 4-9 Cell.- Indicates teacher is asking abroad question leading to a non-predictablestudent response.

120. 4- 3 unti 4-6 Cells.-lndicate teacher is notgiving students an opportunity to respondto teacher's questions.

T2I. /// # d Fraction.- The total number of tal-lies in Columns 1. 2, 3, and 4 divided bythe total number of tallies in Columns I, 2,3, 4. 5, 6, and 7 provides the fraction of

indirect to indirect and direct teacher state-ments. An + D Fraction of .5 means forevery direct statement there was an indirectstatement. I/1 + D Fractions less than .5indicate more direct statement. Fractionsgreater than .5 indicate more indirect state-ments.2

122. ill D Fraction.The total number of talliesin Columns 1,2, and 3 divided by the totalnumber of tallies in Columns 6 and 7 pro-vides a ratio comparing statements con-cerned with motivation and control of theclassroom, eliminating the statements con-cerned with subject matter which are presentin the I/1 + D Fraction.

Row totab. Totals for each of the ten rows in theinteraction matrix were calculated and numbered corr-espondingly as "R" Variables. 1he values of the variables1 -I to T-22 and 11-1 to R-10 were computed for eachclass observation period. These values were averagedacross the five observation periods to compute a summarystatistic for the classroom. The summary statistics for 1-2through 1-20 are given In terms of the number of transi-tions per 1000 (the expected number of transitions at3-second intervals for a 50-minute class period).

Findings

A word concerning numbers. Over five hundred matriceswere compiled from the raw data supplied. Even though agreat amount of data has been gathered, it must be keptin mind that the sample consists of a relatively small col-lection of selected classrooms. In particular, the relevanceof the analyris is grounded in the Social Studies Inventoryand the classification of teachers as dominantly H, 0, orD (Humanistic, Social Utility or Discipline) in their educa-tional intentions, and as M (Moderative) or I (Innovative)in their cultural orientations. The findings represent pat-terns for most extreme examples of each dominance ofintent and orientation.

Some hypotheses were expressed in the very earlymeeting minutes of the Comm;ttee and of its consultants.Others were implied by the design and made explicitwhen the need for statistical analysis required formula-tion. For the purposes of this study, an hypothesis is astatement giving assumed relationships among variables ofinterest which is to be accepted or rejected on the basisof the statistical evidence. The folloing hypothesesshould not be interpreted as value judgments about II, U,or I) teachers. They provide the framework within whichthe analysis is done and were developed early in the proj-ect.

I. Humanistic teachers here h(eher frequency of stn-dent initiated talk than discipline kitchen.

27

Student initiated talk has been found by Amidon andFlanders3 to represent 8% of the time in the averageclassroom. No assumptions were made as to whether thisis good or bad. It was felt, however, that humanisticteachers would be more concerned with students as per-sons and with facilitating their developing identity. A rela-tively high occurrence of student talk would be consistentwith such a concern.

2. Humanistic teachers more frequently accept stu-dent feelings than discipline teachers.

By virtue of their intentional concern for humanisticvalues, humanistic teachers would be expected to be morereceptive of students' feelings than discipline teachers

who would be expected to be more concerned with thesubject.

3. Humanistic teachers have greater frequency of si-lence, not confusion, than discipline welters.

This hypothesis could not be tested since silence andconfusion are combined in the data and cannot be sepa-rated.

4. Humanistic teachers praise more frequently thandiscipline teachers.

The average teacher spends between 1 and z% of thetime In the classroom in praise4 Although support ofstudent Initiative is clearly related to the conceptual mod-el of humanistic intentions, it also appeared logical toassume that teachers concerned with people in terms ofhumanistic values would relate more warmly to their stu-dents, and that this might be expressed in the classroomas praise. Discipline intentioned teachers, on the otherhand, could be expected to relate their feelings morestrictly to the subject content. The effect of these differ-ences will be dealt with in Chapter V. The importance ofthese differences and their relationship to teacher inten-tions is supported by Flanders findings. Flanders hasshown in his studies that "the major differences in theuse of influences between the teachers whose studentslearned the most and those who learned the least areillustrated by the use of actions classified under categoriesI, 2, and 3."3

S. Discipline teochen ask questions more frequentlythan humanistic teaches.

The relatively greater concern of discipline teachersfor subject matter, it is assumed, would be exhibited ingreater subject oriented interaction. The humanistic teach-er, on the other hand, it was assumed would create aclimate of spontaneity in which questions would not benecessary in order to elicit student participation.

6. Discipline teachers bkme more frequently than°dn limb* teachers.

TI, uncern of the discipline intentioned teacher forthe ICC; c subject should find expression in behavior

inhibiting non-academic responses, that is in repression ofspontaneous activity. Student resistance to repressionwould elicit blame from the teacher.

7. Discipline teachers give directions more freent-ly than humanistic teachers.

Another example of the higher direct influences ofthe discipline teacher is giving of directions. This is as-sumed as a corollary to the discipline intentioned teacher.Focus of concern with the subject and its central place inmediating the relationship between teacher and pupils.Humanistic teacher concerns for students' own nmuraldevelopment would imply less need for direction and asmentioned earlier, greater reliance on categories, 1,2,and 3.

8. Discipline teachers lecture more than humanisticor social utility teachers.

The discipline teacher with a commitment to subjectmatter P' d informing the student should imply greaterreliance on transmission of information by lecture. Thehumanistic teacher would rely to a greater extent on in-sight as a method of promoting learning; the social utilityteacher, upon investigation and experience.

9. Discipline teachers hare less participation thanhumanistic or social utility teachers.

Discipline teachers, it was felt, would be less concern-ed with student talk, would be more concerned with com-municating information through lecture; hence, less con-cerned with student reactions and interpretation of thesubject. Humanistic teachers, on the other hand, would beexpected to encourage the articulation of spontaneousand creative student ideas. Social utility teacher, too,would view participation of students as essential to prac-tical skill building.

10. Discipline teachers have less studenttostudenttalk than humanistic or social utility teachers.

Student-to-student talk would have little relation toobtaining information about the subject so essential tothe discipline teacher. It was assumed the teacher wouldbe the main source of information about the subject. Onthe other hand, for reasons mentioned above, student talkwould be highly important to the aims of the humanisticand social utility teacher.

11. Discipline teachers have fewer unanticipated*novas by students than humanistic or socialutility teachers.

This hypothesis was assumed to follow from the dis-cipline teacher's dominant concern for the core contentof the subject. If such teachers ate both competent withintheir subject area, and effective in securing student ac-ceptance of their aim, then one would expect student talkto relate rather narrowly to the subject. Unanticipatedstudent talk would then occur largely when there is a lackof clarity or comprehensiveness in the presentation of the

28

subject. At the other extreme would be the humanisticteacher's desire to maximize spontaneous student initia-tive and internal synthesis of the subject matter. The so-Hal utility teacher would expect students to contributepoetical applications of the subject through its transfer toother areas of knowledge and experience.

12. Discipline teachers accept student ideas less fre-quently than humanistic or social utility teachers.

In theory the discipline teacher's concern is with thesubject in relation to the learner, not the learner in relationto the subject. Student ideas are therefore less importantthan those of the teacher who is the chief source of ideason the subject. For the humanistic te:icher, the converse isthe case. To encourage the natural and spontaneous emer-gence of independent student ideas, the humanistic teacherwould be expected to maximize time spent in acceptance ofstudent ideas. Social utility teachers would find acceptanceof student ideas essential to promoting transfer and applica-tion of knowledge.

The hypothesis pertaining to differences between H,U, and D teachers in regard to values of the interactionvariables were tested by the use of both parametric andno n- parametric procedures. In particular, T tests andmultiple range tests were used Ls variables in whichgroup means (such as the mean T-1 value for H, 11, and Dteachers, respectively) appeared to have substantive inter-pretation. Non-parametric rank correlation procedureswere used in studying association between two variablesmeasured on an ordered wale. Analysis of variance testswere carried out to study hypothesis in which preliminarycomparisons indicated that more sensitive proceduresmight prove fruitful.

Inconsistent and inconclusive variables. Some ofthe T,P, and R variables previously discussed yielded littleor no information for the following reasons:

1. Some variables exhibited variability both betweensuccessive observstions of a single teacher, andamong teachers included in a single category ofteaching intentions. This made it impossible touse average values to represent a typical pattern.The following variables fell into this group:

T6, 18, TI 1, T16, T19, P4, P5, P9, P12, R2,R3, and RIO.

This need not be interpreted, however, as evi-dence of unreliable obse.vations. The mo.t effec-tive teachers are reported by Amidon andFlanders to be those who demonstrate flexibilityin their classroom roles. In 1965 they concluded,"Teachers who were able to provide flexible pat-terns of influence, by shifting from indirect todirect with a passage of time, created situationsin which students learned more. The students ofteachers who were unable to do so learned less."6

Further research into the relationships of var-iability of teacher intention and student achieve-ment, than reported in this study, might provefruitful.

2. Some of the variables were uninformative becauseof values smaller than the variability between ob-servers, notable T20, RI, and R7.7

3. Data compiled for social utility teachers eithertended to fall between humanistic and disciplineteacher results or were too inconsistent to bemeaningful. Hence, social utility teachers wereeliminated from extended analysis.

Table 6. T and R variables. - The final column in thetable shows the data for the total sample. Although thistable appears formidable, it is not difficult to understand.First, each of the T and R variables in the first columncorresponds to the descriptions of these variables givenearlier in this chapter. To interpret the rows it is neces-sary to refer back to these descriptions.

Second, except for T21 and 22 which are per-centages, all of the numbers are given in average rates terthousand transitions. Thus, in Row TI, Column 11, thenumber 593.2 indicates that the teachers classified as hu-manistic teachers gave 593.2 transitions to the TI variablefor every thousand transitions. Looking back at the TIvariable, it is seen to summarize the amount of teachertalk. Converted roughly to time, therefore, it appears thatduring verbal interaction Ii teachers talked about 60 percent of the time. Similar interpretations can be made forall other T and R variables and for all other columns.

Third, the numbers in parentheses at the top of eachcolumn show the number of teachers classified in eachcategory. For purposes of this analysis those classified asdominant in the stated intents or orientations were onlythose who had shown very strong dominance in the par-Ocular category. Meaningful comparisons can be madeamong the II, U, and D teachers, between the M and 1teachers, and between those classified as H-I or D.M.

Totals, Total Sample. Perhaps the most interestingcolumn: from an educational viewpoint is the last one inTable 6, whkh described the total sample. First, note thatthe total for TI, Teacher Tra, equals 666.4. This suggeststhat these teachers, as a group, did the talking *bout 66to 67 percent of the time. The total for T2, StudentTalk, indicated that pupils did the talking about 25 to 26percent of the time. T1 and T2 do not total 100 percentbecause there were periods of time which were hot class-ified specifically either as teacher or student talk. Forexample, T9, Teacher Anger or Lack of Control. totalsonly a fraction of one percent, but suggests lime that wasnot classified as teacher of student talk. Menders reportsthat in most classrooms someone ;s talking about 67% ofthe time. Two-thi:dt of this talk is teacher talk. Typical

29

teachers talk then only about 44% of the time, far lessthan the 66% reported for the in-depth study group.

The Committee would not suggest that the high per-centage reported in this study is either too much or toolittle teacher talk, but it should be noted that Flandershas reported the ideal to be approximately 50%. Actually,while the average teacher has been found to talk 44% ofthe time, and the students talk 30% of the time in theaverage classroom. The average reported in this study,then greatly exceeds the averages reported by Flanders.

The teacher or administrator will have to decide forhimself whether his uses of time given for the T variableare what should prevail. The concern of this study hasbeen to show what did prevail in the classes of the 26teachers who participated. Chapter V will comment uponthe relationships of these practices to student outcomes.

Totals for the R variables show similar results and areconsistent with the T findings. The total for R5, R6, andR7, which reveals direct teacher influence or talk, equals50 to 51 percent of the time. A teacher is termed directif R + R6 + R7 total more than 50 percent. In largersaples,8 about 70 percent of all teachers have beenfound to be direct. The totals for R8 and R9, StudentTalk, come to 26 percent of the time. As mentioned ear-lier this is less than average. Teacher Praise, R2, wasfound to occur at the rate of eight transitions per thou-sand, slightly less than one percent of the time. This isless than that exhibited by the average teacher. Accordingto Flanders and Amidon, the average teacher spends be-tween one and two percent of time in praise.9

Response by categories. As noted, because of ex-treme variability within some categories, some of the aver-ages given for T and R responses were difficult to inter-pret. When an average results from extremely variablenumbers, its meaning as representative of a typical patteinis in doubt. This should be kept in mind when studyingthe data in Table 6. Figures at first glance agpear tosuggest wide differences between the H, U, and D leach-ers, the M's and l's, or the 11-1's and D-M's, may in factbe of dubious significance. Thus, if the four utilitarianteachers scored 40, 30, 50, and 520 for a given variable,the average of 160 for that variable would be misleading.Such an average could not be meaningfully compared to asimilar average for the nine Humanistic teachers if theirscores had all clustered about 120.

Only three of the hypotheses stated and discussedearlier in this chapter can be said to be supported by thedata. Each hypothesis is le-stated below. The variablesagainst whkh each was checked is identified, and the resultsin terms of Humanistic, Utilitarian, and Disciplinary intentsate stated.

I. llumaniitie teachers have higher frequency of stu-dent initiated talk than diseiphne teachers.

Comparisons were made for R9 and T7. Data for T7

neither support nor refute the assumption. Data for R9(total time given to student talk) shows a clear differencein averages between groups. Student initiated talk com-prised approximately 20 percent of the time comparedwith six and eight percent for social utility and disciplineintentioned teachers respectively. This was taken as strongevidence for validation of the hypothesis.

2. Humanistic teachers more frequently accept stu-dent feelings than discipline teachers.

Comparisons were made for RI and TIO. Values forTIO are too variable for meaningful use. The data fromRI shows humanistic teachers accept student feeling twiceas much as the average teacher reported by Amidon and

Flanders. Discipline teachers spent slightly less time thanthe average teacher in acceptance of student feeling. Un-fortunately, techniques for statistical proof of significanceare not appropriate in areas with such small percentagedifferences. (One percent vs. five percent for humanisticleachers and four vs. five percent for discipline teachers)!°

3. Humanistic tearhers have greater frequency of si-lence. not confusion, than discipline teachers

It was not possible to test this hypothesis since itseparated silence from confusion, and these were con?bined in data furnished to the analysts.

4. Humanistic teachers praise mort. frequently thandiscipline teachers.

Table 6

Classroom Interaction Va ilabie: Response by Category

VariableCode

Units H(9)' U(4) 0(5) M(7) 1(9) 114(5) D-M(4)Total Sample

(26)

T I Rate per 1,000 593.2 814.0 694.3 676.3 623.2 661.1 681.5 666.4T 2 " 309.3 150.7 214.5 234.4 306.4 263.4 210.3 256.3T 3 " 378.3 589.1 412.8 428.5 376.5 403.5 414.7 4303T 4 " 2.2 .5 .5 .6 2.2 3.5 .2 1.1

T 5 " 21.2 8.3 7.2 10.4 20.9 26.8 5.7 14.4

T 6 " 13.4 49.9 23.4 19.2 37.8 12.7 10.0 25.5

T 7 " 64.7 45.6 63.9 66.9 65.4 107.5 63.9 56.4

T 8 " 49.4 11.8 58.3 53.9 34.6 38.6 69.8 40.0T 9 " 4.7 .6 .6 I./ 5.3 7.7 .8 2.6

TIO " 17.2 51.8 25.7 22.2 42.4 18.0 11.9 28.4

T1 1" 27.4 9.0 8.0 12.5 27.6 36.8 6.7 17.8

T I 2 " .6 .2 .1 .2 .6 .8 .1 .3

113 " 514.6 718.5 609.5 599.9 507.3 563.8 621.1 579.9114 " 37.4 48.8 80.2 75.1 42.0 51.6 86.6 54.0115 " 3.7 1.1 .9 1.2 3.5 5.4 .5 1.9

T IS " 4.8 3.4 10.1 10.2 5.6 4.4 121 5.7T17 " 37.6 46.7 73.3 62.7 49.8 41.7 70.3 50.7118 " 27.8 33.2 5/.4 52.0 30.7 38.0 58.9 39.1

T19 11.1 13.3 10.0 5.5 11.3 6.6 12.2 9.1

T20 " 5.8 7.7 5.5 5.7 4.9 6.3 6.1 6.3T2I per cent 25 22 32 30 29 26 31 26T22 per cent 54 70 68 70 61 SO 63 61

R 1 Rate per 1,000 1.0 .8 .4 .5 .7 .9 0.0 .8R 2 " 9.1 4.7 11.1 11.7 9.6 10.6 12.9 8.0R 3 " 28.7 74.0 59.3 45.9 65.7 33.1 35.0 5011

R 4 . 87.0 84.4 137.9 121.5 87.6 109 9 147.0 100.7R 5 " 427.6 634.1 471.6 478.4 419.7 453.9 474.1 479.2R 6 ,, 31.7 12.6 11.9 15.4 31.3 40.2 9.9 21.9R 7 ..,

8.1 33 2.1 2.9 8.6 12.6 2.6 3.1

R 8 " 103.0 90.5 137.6 135.8 112.3 168.5 140.4 110.0R 9 , 206.3 603 76.8 98.6 194.1 94.9 69.9 146.4RIO " 97.5 353 91.2 89.3 70.4 75.5 108.1 77.2-

* The number of teachers in each category is enclosed in parentheses. --....30

Comparisons were made for R2, T4 and T15. 116and TI 7. Although the figures given in Table 6 wouldindicate the reverse to be true, actually R2 and 116 aretoo variabl! for meaning, and all figures in T15 are tooclose to zero. This leaves only T 1 7, which was felt tofurnish insufficient evidence by itself for a solid conclu-sion. However, whatever evi(1;nce there is would fasor thediscipline teachers rather .nan the humanistic teachers;hence, the hypothesis is not supported.

S. Discipline teachers ask questions more frequentlythan humanistic teachers.

Comparisons were made for R4, TI8 and T19. Thehypothesis is supported by nearly all of the evidenceavailable. A significant number of humanistic teachersasked questions less frequently than the discipline teach-ers. Values for R4 reveal that discipline teachers spentapproximately 14 percent of their time in questions. Hu-manistic teachers spent only about nine percent of theirtime in questions. Further, the TI8 variable showed asimilar pattern. TI9 was questionable, but it was felt thatthe weight of the evidence supports the hypothesis.

6. Discipline teachers blame more frequently thanhumanistic teachers.

Both R7 and T9 give scores too close to zero formeaningful comparisons. The group of humanistic teach-ers spent 0.8 percent of the time in criticism, while thediscipline teachers spent 0.2 percent in criticism. It is ob-vious that both values are far below that reported byother researchers. According to Amidon and Flanders,criticism consumes between 3 and 4 percent of this timein the average classroom. That evidence from the presentstudy, though meager, suggests humanistic teachers usecriticism most frequently.

7. Discipline teachers give directions more frequent-ly than humanistic teachers.

Comparisons were made for the R6 and T5 variables,and the evidence strongly supports the reverse of thehypothesis. That is, the evidence indicates that humanisticteachers give directions more frequently than disciplineteachers.

8. Discipline teachers lecture more than humanisticor social utility teachers.

Using R5 and T3, the evidence suggests that utilitar-ian teachers lecture more than either discipline or humani-tarian oriented teachers. There is no significant differencebetween the hmanistic and discipline teachers.

9. Discipline teachers have less participation thanhumaristic or social utility teachers.

Comparisons were made for R 8, T 2 and T 20. Noevidence was noted to support the hypothesis, and thevariability was so large in all of these categories that noother hypothesis can be suggested.

31

10. Drcipline teachers hare less studentto-s:udenttalk than humanistic or social utility teachers.

Comparisons were made for the R 9 and T 7 vari-ables. Analysis suggests that the hypothesis is possiblytrue. Although T 7 scores were too variable for meaning-ful analysis. the R 9 comparison bears out the hypothesis.Further study should be made to determine the relativenumber of student-to-student transitions for each groupof teachers. Such analysis was not done because the fre-quencies were too small to allow reliable interpretation ofthe data.

II. Discipline teachers have fewer uaanticipated an-swers by students than humanistic or social util-ity teachers.

This hypothesis was checked by comparing the R9and T7 variables for each group. It appears warrantedupon the basis of evidence utilized in evaluating the pre-vious hypothesis.

12. Discipline teachers accept student ideas less fre-quently than humanistic or social utility teachers.

Comparisons were made for the R 3 and T 20 variables.P. 3 scores were too variable for comparisons to be mean-ingful. T 20 scores were too close to zero. Hence, thehypothesis is neither supported nor rejected.

In summary, only three of these hypotheses were sup-ported by the evidence. The reverse of the hypothesis,however, is probably true for three others. Insufficientevidence was found to support or to reject the remainingfive. Variability of the scores contributed to some lack ofconfidence in using averages to typify a characteristicstyle of the teachers in terms of models of teaching inten-tion. An increase in the size of the sample might haveyielded more defensible averages because in very smallsamples, the influence of any variability is magnified.

P variables (profile variables). Analysis of the Pvariables and attempts to relate them to the T zad Rvariables as well as to the categories of intention andorientation yielded no significant results.

Summary

Using the ten basic categories derived rr,. r the work ofNed A. Flanders, fourteen trained ohs, 'nade at leastthree, and in most instances, five to the classes of26 teachers who participated in the in-depth study. Dur-ing observations, interaction transitions were recorded oncomputer forms, edited for accuracy. ane, subsequentlyprocessed. More than 100,000 items of information wereobtained. This information was studied ;,y the use ofcomposite interaction matrices m hiseh .-cie constructedfor each time use category, each obser% II. and in sum-mary form for each teacher who par lc, I. Time usecategory matrices were not used.

To interpret the information, 22 T variables were de-finel, as were 14 P or Profile variables. The ten R, orrow, variables corresponded to ten categories of theFlanders System. The twelve hypotheses relating to Hu-manistic, Social Utility, and Discipline intentioned teacherswere developed by the Committee and stated forinvestigation.

Totals for the T and R variables indicate that for thetotal sample, the teachers talked at least 66 percent ofthe tune. Students talked at least 25 percent of the time.At least 64 percent of the time that the teachers talkedthey were giving extended lectures. About 87 percent ofthe time given to all verbal interactions were given tosubject matter or content. Totals for none of the othertransition categories extended beyond five or six percent,and most fell to a fraction of one percent. It is not pos-sible to suggest whether or not the pattern of verbal inter-action indicated by these figures 's proper for SocialStudies teaching, without relating such patterns to studentoutcomes as a function of teaching intentions. This wasthe main purpose of the study and will be taken up inthe following chapter.

Analysis of the Profile variables added little to thestudy. Efforts to determine whether teaching practiceswere consistent with the expected behavior of teachers (T

32

& R variables) within each category of teaching intention(I1, U, D) yielded a variety of results. Statistical analysisof some hypotheses was hampered by variability in theaverages reported. Only about half of the expected pat-terns emerged. In three cases, practices opposite to thoseexpected occurred. This raises three possibilities, first thatthe teaching practices observed may not be consistentwith the goals of some of the teachers observed or two,that the categories for recording the student-teacher en-counter were not appropiate to reveal such consistenciesof intention and action, or three, that the expected be-haviors were themselves not consistent with the categoriesof teaching intention.

1. Although considerable research into this topic hasbeen done by Ned Flanders, most of the findings relate toelementary students. For a summary, readers may want torefer to Phi Delta Kappa, June 1969. Vol. L No. 10.

2. Ibid.3. Role of the Teacher in the Classroom, Arnidon and

Fland:rs.4 - 9. /bid.10. Humanistic teachers have greater frequency of

silence, not confusion, than discipline teachers.

CHAPTER FIVE

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT OUTCOMES

Introduction

The final phase of the assessment consisted of testing inthe classes of teachers selected for the in-depth study. Theoriginal design called for a rigid schedule of pre and posttesting, using a series of attitude scales designed to measureselected student outcomes, in combination with a standard-ized test of student achievement. It was hoped that resultsof this testing would yield measures of student outcomesconsistent with the theoretical models of tea;hing inten-tions.

As a result, inferences could be made regarding thesuccess of these teachers in reaching their intended objec-tives. !t was also thought that certain classroom patternsshown by the interaction analysis might tend to be relatedto the achievement of particular student outcomes amongthe most successful teachers. In particular it was thoughtthat the patterns described in the twelve hypotheses of theprevious chapter would show a correlation with specificoutcomes. The implication, of course, is that if the inten-tions and orientations of teachers are reflected in practice,or if these concerns are related to the outcomes of students,then it may be concluded that a teacher's intentions, andperhaps even his philosophy of education, are a factor to beconsidered in program building.

The factual and relatively uncontroversial nature of thecontent of achievement tests is such that high ,onfidencecan be placed in the scores, particularly the differencefound between pre and post test scores. Moreover, onlysuch a test could adequately measure the outcomes of adiscipline intentioned teacher. On the other hand, scores onattitude scales are subject to much larger variability, andconclusions derived from such scores can be stated ,vithmuch less confidence.

THE STUDENTSOCIAL STUDIES

INVENTORYDevelopment. Dr. Marvin Cline of Boston University

developed a multiscale instrument designed to identifyareas judged most appropriate to the Committee's criteriaof relevance. The student outcomes measure, termed theStudent Social Studies Inventory, consisted of a number ofsub-scales derived from published instruments whose use ineducational work was already widespread. The parent in-struments had all proved useful in large scale investigations,and their validity was assumed to be well established.

The tests from which the final selection of items wasmade are as follows:Christie, R., Impersonal Interpersonal Orientations and

33

Behavior. Columbia University Department of SocialPsychology, 1962 (Mimeo).

Christie, R., The Prevalence of Machiavellian Orientations.Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the AmericanPsychological Association, Los Angeles, September, 1964.

Coleman, James, et. al., Equality of Educational Oppor-tunity, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,1966.Remmers, H. N. & Radler, D. H., The American Teenager,Indianapolis: Bobbs-Menill. 1957.

Rokeach, M., The Open and Closed Mind, New .(ork: BasicBooks, 1960.

Sarason, S. B., Hill, K. T. & Zinbardo, P. G. A longitudinalstudy of the relation of test anxiety to performance onintelligence and achievement tests. Monographs of the Soci-ety for Research in Child DevelopiNent. No. 7, 29, & 98 -1964.

From these tests a pool of approximately 400 itemswas assembled. After Committee review, a core group ofitems were selected as a basis for field testing. The purposeof field testing this instrument was to determine some of itsparameters such as total testing time, time required for eachof the sub parts, comprehensibility of the items to thepopulation, appropriateness of the items to the population,and so on. Note that these purposes specifically excludevalidity and reliability. These characteristics had been previ-ously considered in selecting the scales from among wellestablished and well known instruments.

On the basis of field testing which was conducted witheleventh and twelfth-grade boys in a 1968 summer work-study program in Boston, certain scales were eliminatedbecause of inconsistent responses. A final battery was as-sembled that could be completed within 45 minutes,

Description. The final instrument consisted of fivemajor scales designed to differentiate among the attitudesof students in the various areas of role modeling, selfidentify, democratic and racial attitudes, personal and inter-national dogmatism, test anxiety, and orientation towardsocial manipulation. A number of multiple-choice itemswere included for each of these areas, and for each item thestudent was confronted with from three to five choicesamong which to select his degree of agreement or disagree-ment. A logical scoring key was established, and minimumand maximum values were established for each of the subscales.

Seventeen variables termed "Z" variables were used inthis report. These are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9

Student Outcome Variables

Name Values InterpretationMin Max Low Values High Values

ZA 20 120 low Machiavellianism high Machiavellianism(social manipulation)

ZBO Nominal best faculty type, etc.

ZB1 3 JO anti-integration pro-integration

ZB2 3 20 Whites: high inter-racial contact low contact

ZB2 3 20 Negroes: low contact high contact

ZB3A -1 20 strong peer influence adult influence

Zi3A3 1 7 low teacher influence high teacher influence

ZB3C Nominal birth order

ZB4 7 24 pro first amendment anti first amendment

ZB5 4 16 open to foreign ideas closed to foreign ideas

ZB6 7 21 control over environment no control

ZB7 5 15 self-confident no self-confidence

ZI3F,

ZC

Nominal

20 100

self referents

low dogmatism high dogmatism

ZD 25 125 low anxiety high anxiety

ZEI 12 36 low discrimination high discrimination

ZE4 15 45 pro Bill of Rights anti Bil'. or Rights

Administration. The research design recommendedby Professor Cline called for the student outcomes test tobe given twice, once at the beginning of the school year andonce near the end. It was believed that differences betweenthe two scores, might be attributed at least to some degreeto the influence of the teacher and that such differencesmight then be studied both in terms of the teacher's intentsand classroom interaction practices. Since the pre test wasnot given until November and December, by which timeschools had already been in session for several months, eventhe pre tests were to some degree post tests. And, since thepost tests were given only a few months later, during Marchand April, it is questionable whether or not a proper pre-post test pattern ever was really established. Hence, inter-pretation of the results of this phase of the study is verydifficult and becomes a matter of extreme caution.

The test was taken by all students in one class of eachof tiic 26 teachers who participated. A total of approxi-mately 550 students took the test. Because of the timing ofpre and post tests described above, New Hampshire de-clined to participate in post testing. Therefore, comparisons

34

here were limited to the 22 teachers from Maine, Massa-chusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Statistical Procedure. Primarily, what was needed toevidence outcomes was a measure indicating the changethat had taken place in a student's score, presumably as aresult of his classroom experience. To obtain the neededmeasures of change with respect to the variables in Figure 9,certain well defined statistical steps were taken, as follows:

1. The Student Social Studies Inventory was scored,yielding a score for each student for each of the 17variables given in Figure 9.

2. Classroom averages were computed for 15 of the17 variables for each class that participated.

3. The procedure in : and 2 was repeated for the posttests.

4. Since a pre and post test score was obtained foreach of he variables for each student, a measure ofstudent change could be expressed as the differ-ence, if any, between the two scores.

5. Average differences for each class were computedfor each of the 15 variables. These average differ-

ences represent the magnitude of change withineach class for each variable.

6. Average differences, if any, could then be studiedin terms of IL U, and D intents, M and I orienta-tions, and T variables in order to investigate certainhypothesized relationships.

HYPOTHESES

Two major groups of hypotheses were established toguide analysis. The first group expressed expected relation-ships between teacher intentions and student outcomes.The second group experienced expected relationships be-tween the type of student-teacher interaction and studentoutcomes.

Relationships of Teaching Intentions to Student OutcomeHumanistic TeachersExpected relative Z values:Low Values

7,85 ZC

ZB2 ZDZE4 ZE1ZB6 ZE4

ZB7

High Values

2,131

ZB3B7636

The following reasons are given for the expectionsabove. The strongly humanistic teacher might show some ofthe following characteristics: a high degree of tolerance fornew ideas because of a fundamental respect for the beliefsof others, and because of a belief in the ultimate Jmergenceof truth given a free and open market of ideas. The teacherhigh in humanistic traits would be capable of careful andcritical examination of her own beliefs and able to beflexible in the face of new information while at the san.atime able to preserve the integrity of her own value system.Innovative behavior would be expected and reflected in awillingness to take risks for the sake of truth, an ability totolerate failure in the seuch after knowledge, and an open-ness to other (strange or foreis.1) people and ideas, shouldcharacterize the strongly humanistic teacher. These traits iftranslated in the values of her students, should be reflectedin the scores of the Coleman Scale and Remmers' Inventory. A significantly lower tendency toward authoritari-anism and dogmatism, as well as a non-prejudicial attitudeto minority groups, should be apparent in these teachers.Also, these strongly humanistic teachers should be able toreduce the tendency towards test anxiety to a greaterextent than other kinds of teachers.

Social Utility TeachersExpected relative Z values:Low ValuesZE4 ZB6ZB7

High ValuesZA ZB4ZEIZE4

35

The teacher who is strongly social utility intentionedmight be expected to have some of the following character-istics: no apparent value commitment, so that knowledge isused primarily for pragmatic or egoistic purposes. Such anindividual cannot distinguish between value systems exceptin terms of their consequences for the person holding thevalues. In this sense, the teacher can be liberal or conserva-tive, progressive or reactionary. The content of the values islargely inconsequential. The results of behavior expressingthe values are the criteria for judging the worth of beliefs orother systems of knowledge. The achievement of personalgoals is essentially the definition of these criteria, and theability to manage people and situations to achieve personalgoals becomes the preferred skill of the high social utilityteacher. Machiavellian Scale of Christie should best reflectthe influence of such a teacher. The achievement motiva-tion measures in the Coleman Scale should also .effectstudent rejection of the values of subordinating personalbehaviors in the face of an ultimate human good.

Discipline TeachersExpected relative Z values:Low Values High ValuesZB3A ZC

ZB3B ZBCZB4 ZB7ZB5 ZD

A strongly discipline intentioned teacher might havesome of the following characteristics: she might be lesssecure in ambiguous social situations, interested in facts fortheir own sake and consequently, apt to emphasize clarityat the expense of complexity. A discipline teacher wouldstress rote memorization and the acquisition of skillsunique to his particular discipline instead of concept i.,as-tery and orientation to the universals of human history.Such a teacher might feel uncomfortable among less wellknown doctrines as well as among strange individuals. Thewell known facts and systems of organizing facts and peo-ple should be preferred by this kind of teacher lather thanany form of innovation in human relations or the study ofacademic issues. Consequently, such a teacher would bothteach and test according to a system of factual informationwhich contains no intrinsic rationale beyond the superficialones of temporal sequence, names, dates, and places. Over-tones of authoritarianism might be present in such a teacheras well as rejection of novel ideas and extended relationswith strange or foreign people. A dogmatic approach toproblems might very well be present in such a teacher. Hertesting program could easily be capricious or lacking inintrinsic rationale, and her attitudes towards the uniquevalues of youth might tend to be negative.

If these attitudes are present in a strongly disciplineintentioned teacher and thereby communicated to her stu-dents effectively, then the students might be expected to besomewhat nervous about being tested. For those students

who are high test anxiety prone, such a teacher mightmaximize their potential anxiety. Therefore, the SarasonTest Anxiety measure is included in the student battery.Further, students might react negatively to the teachers'rejection of their peer group norms and tend, as measuredby the Coleman Student Inventory, to place them lower onthe scale of significance than their peers or parents. Finally,if the students do in fact identify to any degree with such ateacher there might be a significant incorporation of herdogmatic values, as measured by their scores on theRokeach Dogmatism Scale.

TEACHING PRACTICESAND STUDENT OUTCOMES

The following hypotheses were made regarding therelationships between the classroom interaction pattern andexpected student outcomes.

1. Prolonged and frequent lecturing by teachers tendsto result in dogmatism as a student outcome. Re-sult: classrooms with high T3 values are positivelycorrelated with high ZC scores.

2. A relatively high frequency of praise tends to resultin students with higher self confidence. Result:classrooms with high T4 values are positively corre-lated with low ZB7 scores.

3. Teachers who spend more time giving directionsproduce students who evidence stronger teacherinfluence. Result: classrooms with high 15 valuesare positively correlated with high B.

4. Teachers who spend more time giving directionsproduce children with a higher respect for adultinfluence. Result: classroom with high T-5 valuesare positively correlated with high ZB3A scores.

5. Teachers who encourage students to develop theirown ideas have as a result:a. Students less prone to so-4a' manipulation. Re-

sult. high T7=low ZA.b. Stu "'tits who are more likely to be influenced

by wnat their peers do. Result: high T7=lowZB3A.

c. Students who are more open to foreign ideas.Result: high T7=low ZB5.

d. Students who are more self confident. Result:high T7=low ZB5.

e. Students who have a greater sense of controlover their environments. Result: high T7=lowZB6.

f. Students who are less dogmatic. Result: highT7=low ZC.

g. Students who are more highly committed tofreedom of expression. Result: high T7=lowZE4.

6. Teachers who evidence a concern for positive moti-vation and reward produce students with a greater

36

degree of self confidence. Result: classrooms withhigh TI0 values are positively correlated with lowZB7 scores.

7. Teachers who do not allow students an opportu-nity to respond to their questions tend to producestudents with less self confidence. Result: class-rooms with high values for T20 are positively cor-related with high ZB7 scores.

8. Teachers who are more direct tend to producestudents who are more influenced by adults thanpeers. Results: classrooms with values for T21greater than .5 are positively correlated with highZB3A scores.

Initial Results of AnalysisUnfortunately, the hoped -fur measures of change

described above were not indicated by statistical analysis ofthe classroom averages for pre and post tests. After com-pleting the first five of the six steps that were described, preand post test scores were noted as being consistent witheach other, and no significant patterns of change could bedetected. Since there were no significant average differencesto be studied, there was no possibility of completing stepsix.

Reasons for lack of evidence of change are °pelt tospeculation. It might be concluded that the intentions andorientations of social studies teachers have no bearing onsuch outcomes as were measured by the test given. On theother hand, it is entirely possible that the timing of pre andpost tests was such that the influence of teachers wasalready established by the time of pre testing or :hatinsufficient time elapsed between pre and post testing forinfluence to be indicated in the scores. It is also well torecall that comparisons were based on testing in only 22classes and that the sample sizes may not have been largeenough to detect small yet perhaps meaningful changes.

The time factor seems to be a reasonable subject forcriticism when considering the consistency of pre and posttest scores.

It was decided as a result of the above problem thatfurther analysis of pre test scores should be undertaken-with the assumption that the impact of the teachers studiedhad already occurred by the time of the pre test.

Further EffortUsing pre test scores obtained in the classes of all 26

participating teachers, an effort was made to relate averagescores for each Z variable to the intentions of the teachers.The data for this analysis are shown in Table 7. Wheninterpreting the figures given in Table 7, it is necessary torefer to the meanings of the minimum and maximum valuesgiven in Figure 9.

For example, for ZA, Machiavellianism or social manip-ulation, the minimum and maximum scores were 20 and120, respectively. Low scores were interpreted as a low

degree of Machiavellianism, high scores as a high degree ofMachiavellianism. The total average scores of 62.28 for thestudents of the 26 participating teachers is somewhat belowthe middle of the range of scores. The mid point betweenthe possible low of 20 and the possible high of 120 is 70.Therefore, these students do not appear to be highly so-cially manipulative in their attitudes and, in fact, for allcategories of intent fall consistently below the middle.

Many of the scores fall about the middle of the range.These include ZB I , anti or pro integration, where the groupas a whole appear to be neither strong peer nor anti integra-tion. Similarly with ZB3A where neither strong peer norstrong adult influence is indicated; ZB4 where the groupseem to be neither strongly against nor strongly for theFirst Amendment.

The group scored above the middle on two categories.These were ZB2W where the white students participatingindicated a high degree of interracial contact and ZD wherethe participating students indicated slightly more test anxi-ety than would have resulted from the mid score of 75.Note that ZB2N was not included because of scores tooclose to zero. Many of the respondents did not indicatetheir race, and there were too few identified as Negro tomake these scores meaningful.

In addition to ZA there were a number of the totalaverage scores which are somewhat below the middle of therange. The average for ZB3B, degree of teacher influence,falls well below the middle, 4, indicating that these stu-dents are less influenced by teachers than might be sus-pected. ZBS, attitude toward foreign ideas, suggests that

Table 7

Student Outcome Pre and Post Test Averages: Results by Educational Intention Categories

TotalVariable 11(9)* U(5) D(5) (I ncl. M , 1)

Code, Meaning, Min. & Max. scores Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

ZA Machiavellianism 20-120 61.56 63.75 61.67 65.51 62.73 63.83 62.28 64.41

(Social Manipulation)

ZB1 Anti or pro 3-10 6.22 5.97 5.96 5.80 5.76 6.11 i 5.98 5.96

integration .

ZB2W Whites. interracial 3-20contact

17.09.

16.94 16.45 15.64 17384

17.30 16.97 16.63

ZB3A Peer vs. adult 1-20 10.18 9,61 10.35 9.93 10.81.:.k %,. ,

10.13 10.45 9.74

influence 7):"'"ci 1

ZB3B Teacher influence 1-7 2.27 2.15 126 2.13 ;. 2.09 2.36 2.21 2.21

ZB4 Pro or anti First 7-24 15.18 15.18 15.88 15.50 16.27 15.45 15.78 15.38

Amendments %!A- 1 4

1 ar

ZB5 Open or Closed to 4-16foreign ideas

8.55 8.58 8.68 9.60 , 9.26 8.80 8.83 8.66

ZB6 Control ovt , 7-21environme...

11.92 12.01 12.41 11.87 1,2 50, , I

11:

12.18 12.28

c,

12.52

ZB7 Degree of self 5-15 8.70 8.57 9.16 8.82 8.76 8.99 ' 8.87 8.79

confidence .. ;,... t , . --t.

ZC Degree of dogmatism 20-100 48.02 48,13 53.17 49.58 53.82 49.76 51.67 49.16

ZD Degree of test anxiety 25-125 7e,.51 76.40 78.56 71.89 76.30 73.79 77:12 75.60

ZE1 Degree of 12-36 14.46 14.72 15.80 14.71 16.63 15.93 15.63 15.12

discrimination . i'. .

ZE4 Anti or pro Bill 15-45 22.45 22.64 23.90 22.32 24.75 24.10 23.70 23.02

of Rights,

The number of teachers in each category is enclosed in parentheses.

the group are somewhat open minded toward foreign ideas.A low value for ZB6, control over the environment, indi-cates high control, whereas a high value indicates low con-trol. The low average score here of 12.28 suggests that thestudents control the environment to a greater degree thanmight have been expected. They a. e also a fairly self-confi-dent group, as indicated by the average of 8.87 for ZB7,which is well below the mid point of 10 for this variable.The middle of the range for 7C, degree of dogmatism, is 60.Low scores indicate low dogmatism. High scores indicatehigh dogmatism. Again, the average of 51.67 suggests thatthe group as a whole is not dogmatic. In keeping with thegeneral picture of being open minded is the average forZE1, 15.63. Well below the mid score of 24, it suggests thatthe group as a whole prefers little social discrimination.Finally, the score of 23.70 for ZE4, where low values areinterpreted as pro Bill of Rights, is well below the middlescore of 30, suggesting that, in general the participatingstudents beli,:ved in concepts built into the Bill of Rights.

In general, the composite picture appears to portray ademocratic, open minded group, self confident and in con-trol of their environment , not dogmatic, with little desireto manipulate others, not greatly influenced by teachers,and definitely pro Bill of Rights.

With the above in mind, the numbers in the 11, U, andD columns should be interpreted with considerable care:That is, looking at ZC, degree of dogmatism, for the Dcolumn, note the figure 53.82 for the average score of thestudents of teachers with disciplinary educational intents.This compares with 53.17 for the students of social utilityteachers and with 48.02 for the students of the humanisticteachers. It would be erroneous to leap to the conclusionthat the students of discipline teachers are more dogmaticthan the students of the teachers with the other dominantintentions, and in fact, statistical analysis revealed thatthe amount of difference is not sufficient to reject ahypothesis. An average score of 53.82 is well above themiddle score of 60. The minor differences among averagesshown in the H, U, and D columns do not warrant anymajor conclusions. What, then, may be said about compari-sons of these averages?

Comparisons, Intentions and Outcomes. For five ofthe Z variables, certain differences among averages for class-rooms of humanistic, social utility, and discipline teacherswere found to be statistically significant at the level ofsignificance, alpha = .2. This means that the chances are onein five that differences this large could have happened bychance. It must be noted that this is a liberal basis forestablishing significance and, at four to one, at least threeof the fifteen variables would have shown significant differ-ences by chance alone. Consequently, no single interpreta-tion of the averages shown for the Z variables is in order.Even where statistical significance is indicated, it would beunsafe to express string conclusions.

38

However, the 15 comparisons as a whole illustrate aremarkable consistency of response in favor of the previ-ously hypothesized effects of humanistic teachers. Al-though it is not safe to make individual comparisons, theevidence as a whole is consistently in one direction. There-fore, it must be assumed to have some merit. It would beunrealistic to attribute all these differences entirely tochance.

The evidence is somewhat like that cited in studies ofthe relationship of smoking to certain diseases. No onestudy proves beyond doubt that any specific relationshipexists. But the weight of the evidence appears consistentlyin the same directions.

Consequently, the following fifteen statements aremade about the H, U, and D comparisons as a whole andshould not be quoted out of context for specific variables.Even where statistical significance is indicated, it would beunwise to conclude too much. However, looking at alldifferences, the following statements may be tirade.

1. (ZA) The students of discipline teachers were moreMachiavellian ( social manipulative) than the students ofeither humanistic or social utility teachers.2. (ZB1) The students of humanistic teachers were

more pro integration than were the students of teacherswith disciplinary intents. The students of utilitarianteachers were in between.

3. (ZB2W) White students of utilitarian teachers hadmore racial contact than the students of humanisticteachers. White students of humanistic teachers hadmore racial contact than those of discipline teachers.

4. (AB3A) The students of disciplinary teachers hadstronger adult (versus peer) influence than those ofutilitarian teachers. Those of utilitarian teachers hadstronger adult influence than the students of human-istic teachers.

5. (ZB3B) The students of discipline teachers wereless influenced by teachers than those of either utilitar-ian or humanistic teachers.6. (ZB4) The students of humanistic teachers were

significantly (alpha = .2) more pro First Amendmentthan those of discipline teachers. The students of socialutility were in between.7. (ZB5) The students of discipline teachers were

significantly (alpha = .1) less open to foreign ideas thanthose of humanistic teachers. Again, the students ofsocial utility teachers were between the others.8. (ZB6) The students of humanistic teachers felt

they enjoyed more control over their environmentsthan those of utilitarian or discipline teachers.9. (ZB7) Students in the classes of humanistic teach-

ers were more self confident than those of utilitarianteachers. Those in the classes of discipline teacherswere in between.

10. (ZC) The students of humanistk teachers were lessdogmatic than those of utilitarian or discipline teachers.11. (ZD) The students of utilitarian teachers indicatedmore test anxiety than those of discipline or human-istic teachers.12. (ZEI) Students with humanistic teachers were sig-nifcantly lower (alpha = .2) in social discriminationthan those with discipline teachers. Students with utili-tarian teachers were between the others.13. (ZE4) Students with humanistic teachers were sig-nificantly more (alpha = .2) pro Bill of Rights thanthose with discipline teachers. Those with utilitarianteachers were between the other two.

Once more it must be emphasized that no single one ofthe above statements can stand alone. None should bequoted out of the context of the pattern as a whole. Butthe entire pattern may be educationally significant and isworth noting.

It is possible, of course, that in some unexplainablemanner, like-minded students and teachers tend to be as-signed together. It does appear that if the study wererepeated, a similar pattern of response might be expected.If the study could be repeated, following the original preand post test design and possibly using a more sensitivemeasuring instrument, it is entirely possible that clear preand post test differences for the students of H, U, and Dteachers could be shown.

Additional Analysis

Size and location of school. Comparisons were madefor the Z variables as a relationship to the size and locationof the school. These comparisons showed no significantdifferent es beyond those that might have happened bychance. If the study were repeated, the same differencesmight or might not occur. Therefore, it seems unwise tospeculate about what these particular and possible chancedifferences might mean. A study of students' attitudesrepeated for a larger sample of urban versus rural or smallversus large schools might provide meaningful information.However, the selection of teachers for this study did notprovide a proper sample from which to generalize.

Relationships between I' and Z variables. Despiteconsiderable effort to relate the T variables, specific socialintention patterns, discussed in Chapter Four, with specificstudent outcomes, with the Z variables established for theresults of the Student Social Studies Inventory, no relation-ships were found of statistical significance. This does notsuggest that there are no differences in outcomes as a

39

function of different teaching practices. It does say that sofar as this study showed, no observable differences could beidentified among the various verbal interaction patterns andthe particular outcomes that were tested. The conclusionindicated, therefore, is that the single factor identified inthe study as most decisive in affecting student attitudes isnot teaching practices, but the kind of intentions whichcharacterize the teacher.

Summary

The assessment was concluded by testing four selectedoutcomes in the classes of the 26 teachers who participatedin the in-depth study. A student outcomes measure, con-structed by Dr. Marvin Cline of Boston University, con-sisted of 19 sub-scales derived from certain published in-struments in widespread use. These scales were designed todifferentiate among the attitudes of students in a numberof areas regarded as the most important predictors of futurecitizenship behavior. After field testing and refinement, thefinal test consisted of five scales that could be completed in45 minutes.

Modifications in the original design of the study re-quired that plans for administering a standardized achieve-ment test be dropped. Also, delays and inconsistency inapproval of pre and post test patterns resulted in posttesting from three to four months later. The original recom-mendation was that pre testing be done at the very begin-ning of the school year and post testing toward the close ofthe year.

Probably as a consequence of the pre and post patternsthat necessity demanded, no significant measures of changewere indicated from pre to post test average scores.

A further effort was made to relate the results of thepre test scores to the Humanistic, Utilitarian and Disciplineintentions of the participating teachers, and to the class-room interaction patterns of the teachers without regard tointentions. The general pre test averages suggest that thestudents as a whole were democratic, open minded, selfconfident, not dogmatic, and pro Bill of Rights. There was aslight but consistent pattern of response in favor of thehypotheses identifying the outcomes expected of successfulteachers in each category of intention. No single conclusionmay be drawn with safety, but the pattern as a whole was aconsistent one. Additional efforts to relate the results ofthe student outcomes measure to size and location ofschools and to the Interaction Analysis variables met withno success. The evidence available seems to suggest that thefactors most closely associated with student attitude out-comes are not teaching practices but the value orientationand intentions of the teacher.

CHAPTER SIX

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Values and Findings

It would be an injustice to the Social Studies Commit-tee and to all those who worked so hard during this projectto present a short list of findings as though a few researchfindings constituted the major values of the study. In fact,many of the benefits that resulted from this assessmentmay consist of the involvement of the many teachers whocontributed to it and with the many possibilities for futureinvestigation that may be suggested.

Involvement

First, of course, are the several thousand teachers fromthroughout New England who completed the ;'octal StudiesInventory, either while it was being developed and fieldtested or during Phase f of the assessment. The fact thatthese numbers of social studies teachers completed theinstrument and in the process gave some thought to theirown intentions and orientations is believed to be of educa-tional significance. To this group might be added someothers who, for one reason or another, declined to coin-plet., the inventory. Those who did not participate indi-cated some concern with and for their aims.

At one time consideration was given to the possibilityof turning the entire project over to a major research ortesting organization. After exploring the advantages anddisadvantages of such a move, the Committee decided thatthe involvement of large numbers of New England peoplewas worth whatever loss of research efficiency might resultby retaining local leadership.

Second, there are now a number of trained observersin New England who have had a first -hand experiencewith interaction analysis. As a group these people consti-tute a valuable resource for their departments and theirschools. This training would not have been available ex-cept for the assessment. To the observers may be addedthe 26 teachers who participated in the in-depth studyand who must have become aware of the technique.

Third, are the many professional staff members fromthe several state departments of education, university pro-fessors, high school teachers, administrators, and others.who served as committee or sub-committee members or asconsultants to the project. Most of these people will con-tinue to do their work in New England and, collectively,they represent a knowledgeable pool of experienced talentfor future reference.

Fourth, the instruments produced for this projecthave proved to be useful and may be adapted for furtherinvestigation. The Social Studies Inventory is seen as a

40

possible means of self analysis by which the members ofindividual departments may determine and discuss theirown intentions and orientations. The Student SocialStudies Inventory may tind some use in situations wherethe staff is interested in the measurement of these partic-ular outcomes.

Findings

The findings, themselves, have been stated in the sum-maries prepared for Chapters Two through Five and neednot be repeated in detail here. Most significant from abro.ad point of view is that the results of the SocialStudies Inventory suggest that dominant educational in-tentions and cultural orientations of large numbers ofteachers may, in fact, be identified and analyzed. Thelargest number of the social studies teachers who com-pleted the inventory proved to be humanistic in their in-tentions and innovative in their orientations or want to beso considered. These and other categories of intention andorientation studied in depth proved to be more stronglyrelated to both classroom practices and student outcomesthan any other factor studied. From an educational view-point this has important implications for curriculum de-velopment, teacher education, in-service programs, andother aspects of professional concern.

The largest number of social studies teachers wereidentified as most concerned with humanistic aims, butthe evaluation tools available to these teachers and theirlocal school administrators remain largely standardizedachievement tests which measure outcomes consistentonly with discipline aims. Few of these tests measure out-comes beyond names, date, and places. The project's re-view of the literature revealed very few evaluation devicesappropriate to measure the social attitudes or practicalsocial problem solving skills of students. There is littleavailable to even reveal the ability of students to success-fully diagnose real social problems. A valuable first step inthe direction of developing appropriate devices for mea-suring outcomes consistent with humanistic and socialutility aims might be an instrument to reveal the di-mensions in terms of which students perceive social situa-tions and the depth of perceptions within these dimen-sions.

Second, the preparation of teachers in social studiesremains largely an academic (disciplinar) one. The con-text of this academic study is still in many instances pre-dominantly history. More emphasis upon training in thesocial sciences, in human relations, and in group dynamicswould appear to be appropriate. The present context of

human social life is drastically altered from that whichprevailed at any prior period.

Third, the various state standards for certification ofteachers tend to reinforce the present emphasis uponpurely academic disciplinary training. Perhaps standards ofsocial performance ought to be included in the presentcertification regulations. Having proven one's insight intohuman behavior, or demonstrating a high level of T groupsensitivity, would be as important for a humanistic orsocial utility teacher as the azcamulation of academiccredit.

Fourth, theoretical inquiry of the social studies pro-fession has to date yielded little knowledge about humannature and the dynamics of social life which are consis-tent with its fulfillment. There exists a diversity of opin-ion about what behaviors of individuals and societies aregood, desirable, or morally justifiable. There is no widelyaccepted knowledge of what is good for society which isanalogous to the knowledge of the medical profession re-garding physical hygiene. This places much of appropriatecontent of the humanistic teacher in the arena of publiccontroversy. There is a clear and present need for a com-mon toody of knowledge, which might be termed human-istic knowledge, in terms of which social behavior mayderive its meaning. There is a need, in other words, for ahumanistic curriculum.

Other Findings

That most New England social studies teachers aredefinitely not transmissive in their cultural orientations isworth noting. It is interesting to see that the disciplineoriented teachers tend to fall nearer the transmissive endof the cultural role continuum while the humanisticteachers tend to be consistently innovative in their orien-tation. It may be more educationally significant that, re-gardless of educational intent, most social studies teachersdo not accept transmission of the culture as their majorgoal. It is very likely that successful social studies teachersare having an impact on the process of change whichcharacterizes our culture today.

Efforts to relate the results of the Antecedent Teach-er Questionnaire to the categories of intent and orienta-tion and to student outcomes were frustrating, However,the teachers who participated in the in-depth study feltgenerally free to conduct their own classroom affairs, be-lieved themselves to be well prepared for their work, andenjoyed excellent working relationships with colleagues,administrators, and pupils.

The results of interaction analysis visits suggested thatthe verbal patterns of these teachers appeared to contrib-ute little to the course outcomes measured. In fact, theteachers own value commitments seemed to have moreimpact on the attitude of students than anything elsestudied.

41

The only positive correlations which were significantwere those which related intentions to the classroom per-formance. Four of twelve hypotheses stated by the Com-mittee concerning the verbal interaction patterns of hu-manistic, social utility and discipline teachers appeared tobe supported by statistical analysis. Two were related tothe evidence but in negative form. Six could neither besupported nor rejected by analysis of the scores. It isunfortunate that variability of response in some categoriesprevented a testing of all hypotheses. A comparison ofthe affect of variable teaching patterns as indicative offlexibility of tes'chers would be . fruitful area for furtheranalysis. The small number of participants casts somedoubt upon the meaning of .ne average figures used formaking comparisons in the present study.

Pre-test scores of the Student Social Studies Inven.tory did suggest small but persistent differeaces in theattitudes of students assigned to the classes of humanisticteachers versus the attitudes of those assigned with disci-pline oriented teachers. It must be pointed out that thesedifferences could have been influenced by other factorsnot studied. In any case, to the degree that the factorsstudied influence the attitudes of pupils, the dominantintents of these teachers appear to have been the immedi-ate factor in these differences. Although post-test scoresshowed no significant changes the pre and post test pat-tern was such that little change could have been antici-pated since the pre-tests were not given until severalmonths into the school years The magnitude of effect ofteachers ntention was obscured by a teacher impact al-ready accomplished.

Suggestions forFurther Study

Despite the serious effort that was put into the socialstudies assessment, it is apparent in retrospect that thestudy raised more questions than it answered, It wastempting for committee members to express substantialopinions regarding the interrelationships among intentsand orientations, verbal patterns, and student outcomesbecause they are called upon to do so daily in their rolesas state social studies consultants and supervisors. It wasfrustrating not to be able to fully validate or refute suchopinions because the evidence was too slight to supportstrong statements. Throughout the body of this report anumber of suggestions for further study were presented.These included the following:

I. A further effort should be made to validate theSocial Studies Inventory. In the meantime, it appearsto be a good tool for self-analysis by the socialstudies profession. Used locally, it could lead to athoughtful study of the aims and emphases of thesocial studies program.

2. Although the study indicated that discipline ori-ented .teaehers tend to be moderative in their culturalorientation, there was a suggestion that the transmis-sive teachers ithtified tended to be strongly disci-plinary in intention. Identification of a larger nuroberof transmissive teachers might provide evidence tosupport or reject this hypothesis.3. The number of utilitarian teachers included in thein-depth study was too small for many of the com-parisons of intentions to student outcomes that mighthave been made. A further effort might be made tospecifically investigate the perceptions of dominantlyutilitarian teachers.4. The large variability of the responses for some ofthe interaction analysis and variables suggests that fu-ture investigators using this technique should secure afar higher level of reliability among observers in orderto permit utilization of categories in which smallnumbers of observations occur. It would also be help-ful to secure a larger sample than was the case in thepresent study.5. Certainly, any future effort to discover relation-ships between student outcomes and teacher intentsor orientations should follow a pre and post test pat-tern such as that designed for but not followed in thepresent study, including both standardized achieve-ment tests and the Student Social Studies Inventory.

Subjects forFurther Study

in addition to suggestions contained in this report, theCommittee formulated 13 questions for further study onthe basis of their experience with the project. These are asfollows:

1. What models, other than those investigated by thisstudy, can be developed in an attempt to identifyteacher intentions?

2. Are particular dominant educational intents or cul-tural orientations related to specific personality traits?A study based upon this question might provide a moreadequate basis for selection of teaching candidates.

3. Future studies might compare eclectic (those withno preference) teachers with those who indicate a dom-inance.

a. What are the goals of the eclectic teacher? Issuch a teacher uncommitted or equally com-mitted to a variety of intentions?

b. Are eclectic teachers more concerned with stu-dent goals than with their own?

c. How effective is the eclectic teacher?d. Are those who have a particular dominance

more dogmatic in the classroom than thosewho are eclectic?

42

4. What relationships, if any, are there between thequality or type of a teacher's academic preparation andhis educational or cultural concerns? Are factors ofpreparation associated with the eclectic viewpoint?5. Do teachers of a particular dominance tend to

select similar course content and text materials? Dothey exhibit similar teaching practices?6. To what degree do faculty and administrators agree

about teaching intentions? Would in-depth study of thesocial environment of a specific school provide infor-mation that could help build staffs that are either morecompatible or more diverse?7. What kinds of teachers influence the lives of stu-

dents most as evidenced by their eventual social, pro-fessional, and personal accomplishments? Could a lon-gitudinal study be devised to help answer this question?8. How do teachers with differing educational inten-

tions differ in their classroom presentations? Whatother means are used by teachers to achieve theirinstructional goals? These questions imply a study ofthe total teaching strategies of teachers of various in-tentions.9. Could the instruments used in this study be

adapted to a deeper study of teacher values, studentvalues, J nd the relationships between these value sys-tems as they influence the education process?10. Is an effective teacher one without dominant inten-tions? Can further study of educational intents findother ways for characterizing the effective teacher?11. Would a study of student attitudes identify mean-ingful goals for social studies?12. Could future investigation define dominancethrough more extensive empirical research, for exam-ple, by means of interviews with teachers and theirpeers?13. Do the intentions of social studies teachers corre-late with those of the communities in which theyteach? A further study in specific school and communi-ties light provide ar. answer to this question.

Recommendations

After reviewing the project in its entirety, the Commit-tee considered recommendations to be included as a resultof its work. After considerable discussion, general agree-ment was reached on only one recommentation.

Recommendation:Teachers and administrators should recognize that inmost schools the social studies teachers possess a diver-sity of intentions. Therefore, within the context of thisdiversity, teachers should articulate a rationale for so-cial studies within their departments. The relative!),large number of humanistic and innovative socialstudies teachers suggest a basis upon which a commonrationale could be developed.

APPENDIX I

SOCIAL STUDIESINVENTORY

INTRODUCTION

The following inventory of the New England Educational Assessment Project is being ad.ministered to all Social Studies teachers in the six New England states. Its primary purpose is toprovide a stronger and clearer assessment of the current objectives of Social Studies programs.This project will promote greater recognition of the importance of Social Studies and of the con-tributions made by Social Studies teachers to education as a whole.

The following inventory presents a series o; various imaginary situations. In each of thesesituations, you are given the opportunity to choose between three different ways that you couldrespond to them. For purposes of the inventory, no one of the three alternatives is considered theonly "right" one; each is of equal significance.

You are requested, however, to respond to each alternative according to which choice seemsclosest to your own belief or which best represents the way you would act in the situation. Beforemaking your choice, please read each situation carefully. If in some situations not a single one ofthree alternatives perfectly coincides with your own belief or way of acting, then select that alter-native which most closely approaches your belief or action.

1. Miss Clark, who is studyirg to be an elemen-tary teacher, is assigned by her professor toseveral teacher's guides used in social studiesteaching at the third grade level. Her prob-lem is to evaluate the different kinds of skillsthat each guide emphasizes, and to select theone she feels is most valuable. Which onewould you select in her place?a. First guide: Generating good social problems

suitable to age level is most important.

b. Second guide: Above all, the child most developability to find accurate information and acquireas much social knowledge as possible.

c. Third guide: We should begin early to developthe child's basic attitude toward achievement ofchallenging human goals.

2. For his opinion survey, a sociologist inter-views church-going farmers. One of his ques-tions is: "Why do you go to church on Sun-day?" Which of the following responses isclosest to your own belief?a. Farmer K: Because I feel I receive fresh in-

spiration for my work the following week.

b. Farmer Y: Because I become more aware bothof my own real nature and that of other humanbeings.

c. Farmer Z: Because I seek to understand thethought and traditions of my religion.

3. A social studies class at Huntsville DistrictSchool is undertaking a unit on consumereducation. From their research, students havereported, among others, three varying view-points to the class. Which one of the follow-ing best represents your own belief?a. The typical consumer is, after all, the ordinary

human being trying to fulfill the best that hecan for himself and his family, psychologicallyas welt as pt..sically.

b. The principal goal of consumer educuion is toteach every buyer how to sperd each dollar inorder to receive greatest benefit from his in-come.

c. If cot. units are to perform intelligently, theirmain task is to become informed on the natureand operation of out ptoductive economk 5)1-lem.

4. Journalists are asked to speak at a meetingin Metropolitan University about the Ameri-

3

can political structure and the role of stu-dents. According to three different journal-ists, students should:a. Have a firm knowledge of the present political

systm if they are to become responsible citi-zens.

b. Share actiscly in constructing new political de-signs for the future.

c. Be made aware that gradual :hange is needed inour political order so that it may function moreeffectively.

5. A meeting of all social studies teachers in thesecondary schools of Newborough was heldlast week. The primary task was to formulate"the total image of man" as a guide for thecurriculum. Three statements written byteachers beforehand attacted greatest in-terest:

a. Teacher A: The ideal should center in humanability Lo direct change in behalf of a creativeimage of man and society.

b. Teacher B: In our rapidly changing era whenimportant traditions are threatened, the Idealman must above all understand and preserveour way of life.

c. Teacher C: The image of the ideal man shouldgrow gradually out of people's needs and ex-periences.

6. A speech contest Is held at Central HighSchool. The topic: "Why Is education neces-sary for young people?" Different speakersargue that education:

a. 11 necessary because young people should un-derstand the accumulated knowledge of the agesand of our own chili:Ado&

b. Helps to fulfill inherent potentialities in behalfof ultimate achievement in life.

c. Encourages young people to become moreaware of ibtmstIvei and of their relations withothers.

7. Teachers in the Mountainside RegionalSchool are discussing the possible uses of artin the social studies. They make several sug-gestions that art:

a. Should be used as a teaching aid to help theModem gale information about the subiect tin-der study.

b. Helps to provide students with clearer picturesof the ways people live and adapt to differentconditions.

c. Should be used to provide deeper appreciationof the personal and social purposes of man.

8. Last Sunday a discussion on the radio in-volved three influential citizens who wereconcerned about the role of the social studiesin their town:a. Speaker 1: The main task is to provido knowl-

edge of the history of Western civilization, plussome exposure to such social sciences as soci-ology.

b. Speaker 2: The central theme at any levelshould be the goals of humanity.

c. Speaker 3: Usefulness to everyday life andpractice is primary.

9. Several tr,roups of junior high-school studentsare gathering information about the giantredwood trees of California. In their researchthey learn about the proposal for a RedwoodNational Park. But different groups take bi-ternative stands on this proposal:a. Since the redwoods are beautiful and irreplace-

able, nearly all that are left should be set asidein large national parks.

b. Redwood trees must be protected and preservedto some extent, but private companies mustalso be allowed to own a fair amount.

c. Redwoods are beautiful to be sure, but lumbercompanies still have a right to cut trees on theirown property, in accordance with our economictraditions.

10. A boy and a girl of about 17 years of agewalk into the North Senior High School cafe-teria holding hands. TN boy Is a Negro andthe girl is white. Later in the day, MissFranklin's students discuss what she, a socialstudies teacher, would think about this situa-tion. Would she say?a. They have a right to choose their own partners,

but It wouid be best If tbry kept their Mend-ship outside of school.

b. We should feel proud of this boy tad girl forbreaking tkoh a socW barrier.

e. Yeast people of Merest races should not getinvolved because such a relationship only causesdifficulties foe than and their families.

11. High school juniors are discussing the allegedsuperiority of Americans:

e. Bill: They are superior because recent historyhas demonstrated that America leads the world.

b. Judy: We need to find out in what respectsAmericans may be superior or inferior.

c. Tom: There is only one superior people -thehuman race as a whole.

12. Officers of the Roosevelt Junior .High PTAhave different views on sex education:

a. Speaker 1: It Isn't me function of the school toteach a matter that is the responsibility of thehome,

b. Speaker 2: Moral and social as well as blolog-Ical and physiological aspects of sexual behaviorshould be &missed fully in the classroom.

c. Speaker 3: The physiology of sex should receivecareful attention In the curriculum.

13. National news commentators are arguing onTV about the Negro riots that took place invarious cities

a. Mr. Parsons: Laws should be tightened andpolice protection strengthened to insure againstfurther riots.

b. Mr. Coorad: OK, but even more worth con-sidering are remedisl measures like greaterJob

c. Mr. Frankel: You miss the main point. Negrodemands fo: much mots complete economicand civil riglgs must be met.

14. One of the units in Blackburn High Schooldeals with communism. Social Studies teach-ems are discussing the best ways to teach it:

a. Miss Mermelli maintains that students shouldstudy a bask wane such as The CommunistManifesto; they should be helped to read Itcarefully and

b. Mr. Wallets holds that it is wiser to use a text-book that emphasizes tommenism's oppositionto democratic principles and 't-e6ora.

c. Mrs. BMW faros studying The ColmmintsfManifesto, but would also eecoutage free elmsdiscussion In order to seek agreement as towhether students may or may trot approve ofcornmanhm.

15. Congressmen were chatting in the halls of thenational Capitol about the proposed Fundfor International Development:

a

b.

c.

Congressman K: I support this proposal be-cause it can advance the purpose of a unitedmankind.

Congressman Y: Why not be practical andsimply admit that the proposal strengthensAmerican relations abroad?

Congressman Z: I intend to vote against greaterfunds because we need to reduce federal spend-ing for rAch foreign ventures.

16. A local television station carries a collegepanel discussion by officers of student or-ganizations concerning student demonstra-tions on the campus:

a. Senior class president: Demonstrations shouldbe excluded by college authorities.

b. Secretary of debating society: They are onevigorous way by which students can expressthemselves.

c. Chairman of stujent government: They shouldbe allowed u long as the rules of college ou.thorities are respected.

17. At a PTA meeting, Mr. Montgomery, chair-man of the social studies department of theWestport School, was asked to speak. Themain point he made was this:

Some pedals contend that the social studiescurriculum here is out of date. They criticize itfor not coping with controversial issLes such asracial and Ideological conflicts. I must answer that.although we recognite that these issues are im-portant at the adult level, wi should reaped thoseinfluential otganitations in out community whichhelp to support our school; and which maintainthat it is not our proper place to deal with suchIssues.

After the meeting parents reacted as follows:

a. First parent: Mr. Montgomery makes a lot ofsense.

h. Second isattnt: I agree with those who wantcontroversial issues discussed.

c. 'Third parent: Not only should controversial is-sues be d scusscd. but Modems should meetthem fso.-to-fact thraigh direct communityta vol. erne M.

18. Miss Rafferty plans to teach a junior highschool social studies unit on the populationproblems of India. She is undecided whetherthe emphasis should lie in:

a. Knowledge of population structure accordingto such data as class and rate of growth.

b. Religious, moral, and other traditional va:uesof marriage and the family.

c. Ways that population growth can be controlled,such as family planning.

19. During a seminar at an educational confer-ence, teachers were told .about the differentuses of political cartoons as a teaching de-vice. Mr. Deals, Mr. Lang, and Mr. Carson,respectively, stressed that cartoons:

a. Are sometimes insightful In revealing the cl.::eptrmeaning of historical events.

b. Can help motivate students to become morecritical and mots useful citizens.

c. Can help bring to life the character of impo.tent political leaden.

20. A debate on whether Communist Chinashould or should not become a member ofthe United Nations sparked considerable dis-cussion among members of the class:

a. Pam: The United Nations must not admitCommunist Ch'aa.

b. Betsy: Communist China should become a

member now.

c. Dun: The U.N. should treonsider admission ofCommunist China in due time.

21. "Of various uses of a movie projector in yourclassroom, (to you confider some uses moteimportant than othets?" This question wasconsidered by social studies teachers at Ken-nedy School. Here are some of the responsesdropped in the suggestion box:

a. To impose commuhicajoft between poplethrough visual involvement.

b To belt students obtain a deeper under,tandingof the subject larder study.

c. To increase practical karningliaval aids

22. Students were asked to make suggestions fora study of their city. These were their ideas:a. John: Let's send for booklets, read as much as

we can, look at films, and prepare a report.

b. Ted: Let's make a trip to city hall, tour someneighborhoods, and make a report with photo-graphs of our experience.

c. Martha: Let's meet with eh, officials, civil rightsleaders, and citizens of different social classes,and then develop a new city plan.

23. Teachers in the Eastbrook School were corn-paring notes on their units on the SovietUnion. They found some variations in em-phasis:a. Mrs. Thotnas: I like to compare Soviet and

American rates of technological progre 4.

b. Miss Lane: I emphasize the cultural values ofthe Russian people so that students can get the"feel" of the country.

c. Mr. Bachs: I stress historical periods, ideolo-gies, and geographical regions.

24. The principal et Smithville High is seekingan experienced social studies teacher. He hasdiscussed the candidate's qualifications withthree associates, each of whom stressed adifferent primary qualification:

a. Mr. Iota's: The candidate's record of coursesand grades in history and other related sub-

b. Mr. Stone: P.icommeadations of former em-ployers as to teaching skills.

c. Mr. Ladd: Personality atd Interest In students.

25. A local association of churches sponsored apublic debate on the war in Vietnam. Threepublic figures participated.a. Speaker I: The Vietnam war must be won to

prevent the expansion of communism.b. Speaker 2: Our government should begin to re

duce gradually our Involvement in the war.c. Speaker 3: US". troops should be withdrawn

without further delay.

26. Mr. Smith is planning an experiment21 highschool -snit on the role of religion in themodern world. He asks his fellow teachers

which of three approaches seems most de-sirable:a.

b.

c.

Approach #1: Religious leaders of variousfaiths offer a series of lectures followed bydiscussion periods.

Approach #2: Students learn about major re-ligions comparatively through visits to churches,synagogues, and other first-hand experiences.

Approach #3: Students and teachers of differ-ent views on religion share their convictions,setting critically individual and group ap-praisals.

27. At lunch time a group of teachers is discus-sing methods of pupil evaluation. Differentviews are expressed:a. Teacher X: I prefer to use objective tests be-

cause they are the most effective method ofevaluation.

b. Teacher Y: My students and I work out thestandards of evaluttion which together we putinto practice.

c. Teacher Z: I emphasize a combination of ob-jective tests and student self-evaluation.

28. Teachers in Memorial Junior High are en-couraged to make frequent use of maps intheir classes. They prefer doing so for differ-ent reasons:a. Miss Ca is believes that students should have

adequate geographical knowledge of continentsand countries of the world.

b. Mrs. Spence believes that students should mikefrequent use of maps In order to become skill-ful.

c. Mr. Drake believes that maps aid students indeveloping perspectives on iAdturts of the worldand their diverse peoples.

29. A student doing a survey asked teachers torespond to this question: "Should a privatecorporation be expected to provide trainingand Jobs for unskilled and unemployedpeople?" The mponses fell into three pat-terns:a. The coop ration has a public obligation to hitt

and train eomornically disadvantaged people.b. The corporation should consider such people

wording os gladly the same quxlificationsthat apply to any other applicant.

c. The corporation should be urged to hire andtrain such people, but need eel no obligationto do so.

30. Mr. Jacobson previewed a group of shortfilms dealing with the history of AmericanIndians. He found differences in their focus:a. Movie A stressed the white man's exploitation

of the Indian.

b. Movie B stressed the Indian's interference withthe white man's colonization.

C. Movie C stress.e4 how the white man sometimestook advantage of Indians while Indians some-times attacked white manes settlements.

31. Several community organizations learned thata teacher in Donaldson School was usin4 atextbook to which they objected and whichthey wanted withdrawn. Donaldson teacherstook different stands on the dispute:a. Mrs. Singer: These organizations represent

many fine parents; I think the text should bereplaced by a more agreeable one.

b. Miss Flynn: Teachers, as professionals, shouldhave the right to decide which textbooks to use.

c. Mrs. Rank: Lees listen to what the organiza-tions have to say and then we can discuss bothour own position and theirs.

32. While investigating problems of slum clear-ance and urban renewal, Mr. 1-nrsen's stu-dents got into a lively discussion about thesignificance of their recent visit to a nearbyNegro community. He listened to riany com-ments, including the following:

a. Nancy: Our visit provided r. closer sympathywith the discirnination experienced by Negroes.

b. Bill: We were stimulated to think more serious-ly about widespread actions urgently required toimprove the conditions of minority groups.

t. Joe: A great deal of reliable, first-hand socialand economic facts became more necessary thanever before.

33. Curriculum guides in several nearby schoolsystems Include a unit on Eskimos, but someof the bask purposes of this study variedfrom one guide to another.a. Guide X: To study about Eskimos as well as

other primitive cultures.

b. Oukk Y: To reproduce and practice with thekinds of tools that Eskimos employ in a difficultenvironment.

c. Guide Z: To have children learn about the waysEskimo children are fundamentally like them-selves in spite of different customs.

34. "When a student asks you a difficult ques-tion, how do you answer if you're not sure?"Miss Jones, a beginning teacher, asked theadvice of Mr. Giles, an experienced teacher.He replied that he has found at least threedifferent* ways to handle such a situation:

a. Give the best answer you can because it is moreimportant that the students respect you than tobe sure of an answer.

b. Admit that you don't know the answer at all,but find the question interesting enough to offerto search for it.

c. Although you aren't sure of the answer, makethe best attempt you can with the hope thatyou'll be helpful.

35. Harold Rogers, a teacher in the Park School,has been thinking about the increasing In-volvement of big companies in the field ofeducation. He sees many possibilities in thistrend, including the following:

a. Large business organizations have the meansto develop new educational materish, so theyshould do so frequently and freely.

b. Teachers should become much more independ-ent in order to reduce the Influence of big com-panies

c. Large companks have found the educationalfield a ripe one for expansion, but teachersshould be careful about accepting their prod-ucts.

36. It was decided that bask democratic conceptslike liberty be included in the social studiescurriculum this year at the Monroe School.At the department meeting, teachers airedtheir opinions:a. Miss Crane: I think IS:: Intellectual history and

development of these cowl* is one of themost important aspects to stress.

b. Mr. Chinn: These concepts, although abstract.contribute one important value its solving theproblems of everyday hie.

c. Miss Wilson: Concepts like this bold wry im-portant meanings for thk rights of minoritygroups today.

APPENDIX II

SOCIAL STUDIESSTUDENT INVENTORY

INTRODUCTION

Tri following inventory is being administered to a large group of students in the six New England states. Its primary purpose is to estimate the range ofsocial insights indicative of student outcomes of concern to educators, student, and the general public. It is hoped that knowledge of the range of studentperceptions in these areas will promote a greater understanding of the educational processes currently functioning in the New England region.

The statements you are about to read all represent beliefs of feelit.gs that are held by many people and rejected by others. Clearly, there areno

known tight or wrong answers to any of them. In each instance you will be asked to record the extent to which the statement represents your belief offeeling. In some cases it may be impossible to record your exact judgement on a specific matter. In such an instance, pease record an answer that comescloset to your belief of feeling. Please be sure to ant-were/questions.

;tote Carefully: Your own responses to this inventory will be kegs strictly confidential. All answer sheets wall be filed as part of the total project.They will be grouped by category in order to permit generalizations about students in the New England region, bvt In no case will any individualresponse

sheet be identified for any purpose other than grouping. You can be certain that no Information about your responses to this surrey will be revealed!Ay member of your school system or any other agency.

Thank you for your cooperation.

DIRECTIONS FOR SCALE A

Listed below are a number of statements. Each represents a commonly held judgement. There are no right orwrong answers. You will probably disagree with some items and agree with others. We are interested in theextent to which you agree or disagree with such matters of judgement.

Read each statement carefully. Then indicate the extent to which ; ou agree or disagree by checkingthe appropriate column on the response sheet. The column headings are:

agree stronglyagree somewhatagree slightlydisagree slightlydisagree somewhatdisagree strongly

First impressions are usually best in such matters. Read each statement, decide if you agree or disagreeand the strength of your judgement. Give your judgement on every statement.

If you find that the categories to be used in answering do not adequately indicate your own judgement,use the one which is closest to the way you feel.

1 lirei..er tell anyone the teal reason. you did somethingunless it is useful to do2 The best way to handle people is to tell them whatthey want to hear3 One should take action only when sure it is morallytight.1. Most people are basically good and kind.5. It Is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streakand it will come out when they are given a chanct.6. Honesty is the best policy in all cases

7. There is no excuse for lying to someone else.

6. Generally speaking, men won't work hard unless theyforced to do so.9. All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to beimportant and dishonest10. When you ask someone to do something tot you. it isbest to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than givingreasons which carry more weight

11. Most people whn get ahead in tho world lead clean.moral lives.

17 Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking fortrouble.13 The biggest dillerence between :nost criminals and otherpee ole is that the criminals are stup.d enough to get caught.14. Most men are breve.

15. It is wise to flatter important people.16 It is possible to be good in all respects.17 Barnum was wrong *hen he said that there's a suckerborn every minute.18. It is hard to get sherd without cutting corners here andthere.ig. People sulfering from incurable diseases should have thechoice of being put pa.plessfY to death

20. Most men forget .riore easily the death of their fatherthan the loss of their properly.

DIRECTIONS FOR SCALE B

Listed below are a number of statements. Again, there are no right or wrong answers. This time, however, we

would like you to pick one of the alternative responses, and check the column under the letter that corresponds

to your judgement on the response sheet.

1. What type of faculty do you believe is best for a publicschool with an all non-white or predominantly non-whitestudent body?

A. An all-white facultyB. Predominantly white facultyC. About equal number of white and non-white

iacultyD. Predominantly non-white facultyE. All non-white facultyF. It doesn't matterG. Selected without regard to raceH. Some degree of integration, but ratio doesnt

matter

2. What type of faculty do you believe is best for a publicschool with a racially mixed student body?

A. A.n all-white facultyB. Predominantly white facultyC. About equal number of white and non-white

facultyD. Predominantly non-white facultyE. All non-white facultyF. It doesn't matterG. Selected without regard to raceH. Some degree of integration, but ratio doosn't

matter

3. What type of faculty do you oelieve is best for a publicschool with en all-white or predominantly white student body?

A. An all-white facultyB. Predominantly white facultyC. About equal number of white and nen-white

facultyD. Predominantly non-white facultyE. All non-white facultyF. It doesn't matterG. Selected without regard to rac0H. Some degree of integration, but ratio doesn't

matter4. Let's say that you had always wanted to belong to apaticular club in school, and then finally you were asked tojoin. But then you found out that your parents didn't approveof the group. Do you think you would ...

A. Definitely join anyway8. Probably joinC. Probably not joinD. Definitely not join

5. What if your parents approved, but the teacher you likemost disapproved of the group. Would you ...

A. Definitely join anyway8. Probably joinC. Probably not joinD. Definitely not joie

6. But what if your parents and teachers approved of thegroup, but by joining the club you would break with your closestfriend, who wasn't asked to Join. Would you ...

A. Definitely join anywayB. Probably joinC. Probably not joinD. Definitely not join

7. Which one of these things would be hardest for you totakeyour parent's disapproval, your teacher's disapproval, orbreaking with your friend?

A. Parent's disapprovalB. Teacher's disapprovalC. Breaking with friend

8. Are you ...

A. An only childE. The oldest child in your familyC. The youngest child in your familyD. Between the oldest and the youngest

9. How many of your teachers in the first tight grades ofschool were white?

A. NoneB. A fewC. Less than halfD. About halfE. More than halfF. Almost allG. All

10. What was the first grade you attended with studentsfrom another race in your class&

A. 1st, 2nd, or 3rdB. 4th, 5th, or 6thC. 7th, 8th, or 9thD. 10th, llth, cr 12thE. CollegeF. P?ve never attended classes with students from

anot.er r

11. If you could hay, anyone you wanted for your closefriends, ; wr many of thtm would be white?

A. NoneB. Less than halfC. About half0 More than hallE. AllF It doesn't matter

11 In your first eight grades of school, about how many ofthe students in your classes were white?

A. NoneB. A fewC. Less than halfD. About halfE. More than halfF. Almost allG. All

13. When a new clothing style comes out, how soon do youchange to the new style?

A. I'm usually one of the first in r-y group tochange.

8. I change about the same time that most otherpeople in my group change.

C. I usually don't change until most of my friendshave changed.

D. 1 don't follow the change at all.E. Clothing styles don't matter to me.

14. Suppose you had money to buy a new sport jacketfor a spacial dance. How would you decide what style orfashion to look for?

A. ask a friend my own age 'or advice.8. I'd ask a friend a little older than I am for

advice.C. I'd ask one of the members of my family for

advice.D. I'd find out what is in style from a magazine.E. I wouldn't consult anyone or anything.

15. Newspapers and magazines should be allowed to printanything they want except military secrets.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

16. Do you think that loyalty oaths should be required of allgovernment employees, or only of those in positions involvingsecurity or secrecy?

A. Required of allB. Required only of security employeesC. Not required of anyD. Uncertain

17. Should or should not teachers in our schools and collegesbe required to sign a special ion-communist oath?

A. Should8. Should notC. Uncertain

18. Police and other groups have sometimes banned orCensored e.ettr in hooks and movies in their cities. Should theyor should they not have the power to do this?

A. ShouldB. Should notC. Uncertain

19. It has been suggested that persons who refuse to serve inthe Army or "fight for their country" should be deprived oftheir right to vote. Do you agree or disagree with this idea?

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

20. Should or should not a foreigner visiting this country bepermitted to criticize our government?

A. ShouldB. Should notC. Uncertain

21. Some cities have passed laws against printing or sellingany communist literature. Do you think such laws should orshould rot be passed?

A. ShouldB. Should notC. Uncertain

22. In peacetime, do you think that members of the communistparty in this country should be allowed to speak on the radio?

A. ShouldB. Should notC. Uncertain

2Z. We should encourage more new ideas rather than alwayskeeping to the old, tried and established ways of doing things.

A. AgreeB. Undecided; probably agreeC. Urdtcided; probably disagreeD. Disagree

24. Most foreigners have annoying habits.

A. AgreeB. Undecided; probably agreeC. Undecided; probably disagreeD. Disagree

25. We should not limit and control immigration offoreigners into this country as much as we do now.

A. AgreeB. Undecided; probably agreeC. Undecided; probably disagreeD. Disagree

26. There is too much concern about danger to dermxracyfrom foreign ideas within this country.

A. Agree8. Undecided; probably agreeC. Undecided; probably disagreeD. Disagree

27 People who except their condition in life are happier thanthose who try to change things

A. Agree8. Not sureC. Disagree

28. Good luck is more important than hard work for success.

A. AgreeB. Not sureC. Disagree

29. People liisc me don't have a very good chance to besuccessful in life.

A. AgreeB. Not sureC. Disagree

30. Every time I try to get ahead, something or somebodystops me.

A. AgreeB. Not sureC. Disagree

31. If a person is not successful in life, it is his own fault.

A. AgreeB. Not sureC. Disagree

32. Even with a good education, I will have a hard timegetting the right kind of job.

A. AgreeB. Not sureC. Disagree

33. I would make any sacrifice to get ahead in the world.

A. AgreeB. Not sureC. Disagree

34. If I could change, I would be someone different frommyself.

A. AgreeB. Not sureC. Disagree

35. 1 sometimes feel that I just can't learn.

A. AgreeB. Not sureC. Disagree

36. would do better in school work if teachers didn't go sofast.

A. AgreeB. Not sureC. Disagree

31. The tougher the job, the harder I work.

A. Agree8. Not sureC. Disagree

38. I am able to do many things well.

A. AgreeB. Not sureC. Disagree

39. Which of the following policies on bussing of elementaryschool children represents the best educational practice in yourestimation?

A. Children should not be bussed to a school otherthin their neighborhood school.

8. Children should be bussed to another ochoolonly to relieve overcrowding.

C. Non-white children should be bussed to anotherschool in order to achieve racial balance.

D. Both white and non-white children should bebussed into schools with a predominantlydifferent racial composition to achieve racialbalance.

40. Which of the following policies on neighborhoodelementary schools represents the best educational practicein your estimation?

A. Neighborhood elementary schools should bemaintained regardless of any racial imbalanceproduced.

B. Neighborhood elementary schools should bemaintained but where possible a device such asreducing the grade span of schools, 'pairing'schools, or another practice should be used topromote racial balance.

C. The idea of neighborhood elementary schoolscan be abandoned without significant loss.

41. Do you believe there is a sound basis in educationalpolicy for giving compensatory programs to culturallydisadvantaged students at extra cost per pupil?

A. YesB. NoC. Undecided

42. A situation like this might face anyone sooner or later.Suppose your parents planned a special trip to New York tocelebrate their wedding anniversary, and they wanted to takethe whole family along. But the.1 it happens that this yearyour basketball team gets to the state tournament. The statefinals are the very weekend that your family is going to NewYork. Your parents can't change their plans and they leave itup to you: to go with them or to go to the tournament. Whichdo you think you would do?

A. Go with parents8. Go to tournament

43. Suppose you had a chance to go out with either acheerleader, or a girl who is the best student in class, or thebest looking girl in class. Which one would you rather go outwith? Or if you are a girl, would you rather go out with a starathlete, the best student, or the best looking boy?

A. Cheerleader or star athleteB. Rest studentC. Best looking

44. A lot of times people make plarcs and then find that theplans cut into something else. Suppose your family had planneda trip to the West for a vacation in the summer. if you go alongwith them, it means you can't go camping with your friends, asyou've been planning to do. What do you think you would do?

A. Go West with parentsB. Go camping with friends

45. II you could be remembered here at school for one of thethree thine below, which one would you want it to be?

A. Brilliant studentB. Athletic starC. Most popular

DIRECTIONS FOR SCALE C

Listed below are a number of statements. Again, there are no right or wrong answers. We would like you to stateto what degree you agree with each statement. Please indicate the degree of your agreement by checking Lieappropriate columns on the response sheet. The column headings are:

agree very slightlyagree slightlyagree moderatelyagree stronglyagree very strongly

1. The United States and Russia have just about nothing incommon.

2. The highest form of government is a democracy and thehighest form of democracy is a government run by those whoare most intelligent.3. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is aworthwhile goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict thefreedom of certain political gro'ips.4. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

5. Most people just don't give a damn for others.6. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me howto solve my personal problems.7. There is so much to be done and so little time to do it.

8. It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward.

9. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this wor'''there is probably only one which is correct.

10. A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes itlikely to bee pretty 'wishy-washy' sort of person.If. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerousbecause it usually leads to betrayal of our own side.

12. When it comes to differences of opinion in religion, wemust be careful not to compromise with those who believedifferently from the way we do.13. The worst crime for a person to commit is to attackpublicly the people who believe in the same thing he does.14. There are two kinds of people in this world: those whoare for the truth and those who are against the truth.

15. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses toadmit he's wrong.16. In this complicated world of ours the only way we canknow what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts who canbe trusted.17. In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends andassociates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as ones own.

18. Most people just don't know what's good for them.

9. It is only natural kr a person to be rather fearful of thefuture.20. While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my secretambition is to become a great man, like Einstein or Beethovenor Shakespeare

DIRECTIONS FOR SCALE D

On the response sheet are five columns representing a range of feelings. At the opposite ends are opposite feelings.Please show how you feel about each statement by placing a check in the appropriate column.

Many people have been interested in how students feelabout tests and about taking tests. We would likeyou to tell us how you feel about the different kinds of tests. We are interested in finding out how students differin their feelings about the different tests.

There are no right or wrong answers to this questionnaire. We are only interested in how you feel abouttests. The value of this questionnaire depends upon how straight and frank you are about telling your real feelings.Remember that your answers will not be shown to anyone in the schools. Everything you say here will be keptstrictly confidential.

There are three kinds of tests mentioned in this questionnaire:

1. Scholastic aptitude tests. These are the kind of tests that all of you have probably taken atsome time in Junior High or High School. These are usually the tests for which you cannot prepareand for which you cannot study.2. Teacher-made tests. These are the tests given to you during the term which your teacherannounces ahead of time. These tests cover the material you have I.d1 in class, and you can studyfor them.3. Tests. When the statement says 'tests,' it means any and all kinds of tests.

Read every question carefully. Answer every question. Be sure to tell how you really feel. Answer thequestions quickly. Do not spend too much time on any one question.

1. Before taking a teacher-made test I tend to worn

2. I expect myself to do better with difficult problems givenas homework than with the same problems given on a teachertest.

3. After I have completed a teacher-made test, I worryabout how well I have done.

4. Even thoJgh I prepare for a course examination I expectto do poorly on it.5. While taking a teacher-made test, I wonder about howwell I am doing.6. I feel that a teacher-made test result (score) shows whatreally know in the subject.7. I try to improve my grades from one test to the next.

8. While taking a teacher-made test, I find myself thinkingabout how well I am doing on it.9. I feel that my classroom participation shows what Iknow about a subject better than my examination scores.

10. While taking a scholastic aptitude test, I do not sweatmore tian I do at other times in school.11. tefore taking a teacher-made test, I feel fairly confidentthat I will do well.12. I usually expect to do poorly on a teacher-made test.

13. I find myself thinking about other things while takinga test.14. After I have completed a scholastic aptitude test, Iworry about how well I have done.

15. After taking a teacher-made test, i feel fairly confidentthat I have done well.

16. While I am taking a test, I find that I cannot seem to sitstill.

17. When the teacher announces that a test is going to begiven, I become afraid that I am going to failthat I will dopoorly.18. While taking a hard test, I find that I tend to forget factsthat I thought I knew very well.19. I am trying to aim for a perfect score on every test thatI take.

20. Before taking a test, I worry about the possibility offailing it.21. While taking a scholastic aptitude test, I wonder abouthow well I c.rn doing.

22. I enjoy taking a test.23. When under the pressure of testing situation, I workbetter than I do when on my own time.24. Before taking a scholastic aptitude test, feel fairlyconfident that I will do well.25. While taking a teacher-made test, I am aware that myheart is beating faster.

26. While taking a scholastic aptitude test, I worry about thepossibility of failing it.

DIRECTIONS FOR SCALE E

Here again are a list of statements. Read each statement carefully. Then indicate on the response sheet whether youagree, disagree, or are uncertain by checking the appropriate column. Don't forget there are no right or wrong answers.We are simply interested in your judgement.

1. People of all races and nationalities should attend schooltogether everywhere in this country.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

2. The government should have control of all the railroadsand airlines.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

3. Obedience and respect for authority are the mostimportant virtues that children should learn.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

4. Newspapers and magazines should be allowed to printanything they want except military secrets.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

5. Religious belief and worship should not be restrictedby laws.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

6. People of different races should not dance together.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

7. The government should abolish all rights of inheritanceto insure equality of opportunity.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC, Uncertain

8. Whatever serves the interests of government best isusually right.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

9. The government should prohibit some people frommaking public speeches.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

10. In some cases the police should be allowed to search aperson in his home even though they do not have a warrant.

A. Agree13 DisagreeC. Uncertain

11. 'wimming pools should admit people of all races andnatit,ialities to swim in the same pool.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

12. Most basic industries, the mining and manufacturing,should be owned by our government.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

13. Most children these days need more discipline.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

14. Some criminals are so bad that they shouldn't be allowedto have a lawyer.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

15. Some religious groups should not be allowec; the samefreedom as others.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain

16. There should be laws against marriage between people ofdifferent races.

A. AgreeB. DisagreeC. Uncertain