Annual Technical Progress Report for Emergency School Assistance Program, Title 45, 1970-71
Descrição do Produto
DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 111'900
UD 015 4
95
'Lindsey, Handall Annual Technidal Prdgress Report for Emergency School Assistance, Program, Title 45, 1970-71. Kankakee'Sghool District 111, Iii. Bureau of ,School ,Systems (DHEW/OB), Washington, D.e.
AUTHOR,,,.
TITLE
-INSTITUTION
,
SPONS AGENCY .PUB DATE.
71s'
GRANT NOTE
OEG-5-71-0019 94p.; Several pages of illustrativemaierials in "Attachment B" to thiS document have been deleted for reproducibility reasons .
,
,
EDRS PR1tCE
DESCRIPTORS
NP-$0.76 4C-04:0 Plus Postage Acadeiic Achievement; Childhood; Community '-Information Services; Grade 4; Grade 5; Helping .
-
Relationship; InformatiOn Networks; 'Minority Group ChildrenvOrganizatiofial Change; *Peer Counseling; RaciAl Differences; *RemedialInstruction; School Environment;-School ntegration: *Self Concqpt; Self Esteem; *Telephone C munidation Systems; Youth
,/.
Problems-
/7 IDENTIFIERS
pergency School Assigtance Program; Have A Student. Help ProgramI.Illinois (Kankakee); KObile Learning 'Unit Program'
sr
ABSTRACT,
This paper presents a technical progress report of ,two prOgrams conducted with funds piotided under the. Emergency 'School Assistan;e Program. One, the Mobile Learning Unit; said to have been designed fO'seasure.Ctanges in fOntth'and fifth grade students, self-toncept sin a reorgan,ixed desegregated schoOl etvironment, focuses on whether a' positive self- concept comes (1) from a decrease ,
OPacademic deficiencies through remediation procedures =-from
a
prbdram, designed to increase success, identities; (2) from neither of thess; 'or (3f from )both of,these treatments. Results diknot.support either treatment', yet the self-concept changes were stated tbo be encouraging. The othee.program consists of a telephone hotline said to have been,designed,to allow "students who have problems' to telephone a central Iodation and receive advice and direction with some degree of anonymity.-The assumption that pre.Tagblescents are more apt to talk to an unknown peer was proven InvIlid. Hotline. _helpers were foURd to be unable, to relax enough to calmly discuss the allerys problems in, depth. The program as operating under its )
,present'stutture was not recommended for continuation.
'ilAuthor/M, ..7
/
a.
a
1/4
a V
4
A sf..t.,
ANNUAL TECHNi6At PROGRESS REPORT FOR
EMERGENCY SCHOOL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TITLE 45 1970-71
"A propOsal to fbous.on the dev,elop-
ment ofpositive.self4conoepis among students in a reorganized school environment"
-GRANT*NO. OEG4-71-0019
Submitted by %I Randall B. Ldndsey 411.'
KANKAKEESCDOOL DISTRICT O. 111 KANKAkEE ILLINOIS' 4
2 U S DEPARTMENT OF 14 ALTH EDUCATION 4 WELf RE NATIONAL INSTITU OF EOUCATION
4
THIS .1:10euMENT HAS
DUCE° EXACTLY AS R AT7NRGEIRTSOPHOIONRTiOORF VGANI
EEN DERR° OvE0 FROM A T ION ORIGIN
W OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NEC SAR/LY REPRE SENT OFFICIAL NATIO AL iNSTITVTE OF EDUCATION POSITIO OR POLICY
INTRODUCTION: '/
The purpose of this paper is ito deliver a techni
1
for. programs conducted with.funds provided under
he Emergency School
Assistance Program.
Kankakee School District #1I
prodiress teport
provided two pro-
./
.
grams with these funds. 'One'was the Mobile Leaeni g Unit Program
based on techniques deJeloped by Dr. William Glag
The other
.
was a telephone hotline designed to allow students. ho had a'problem to telephone a central iocatibn so that they may to k with someone; posstibly receive some advice and direction;'and at
e same time
`retain some degree of anonymity.
MOBILE LEARNING UNIT PROGRAM a.
The Mobile sl.earning Unit Program was a program design d to measure
changes in students' self-concept.
The prog'r /6 was o iginaTly
conceived by a team of staff members :from
Once the pcegram was funded Dr
#111.
Univarsityyas contracted to este e'Oectually measure the impac
So as not to be redunda
ankakee'S
William Anderso
igh a re
of the
el District
rah'616de-
of Stacuse
2o'wecould
rogram.
make no further coniMen
in deference
.
to Dr. Anderson' ,s'
HAVE A STUDEN .
A)
P PROGRAM TELEPHONE 'HOTLINE)
t was designed and implemented as a service t
students.
elor directed the program and four bth grade stud nts received ephont,
C
(Attachmen
.
This p
A
H
ichsis attached.
The students.plagned the phones every, Saturday from 9 a.m.
o 12
A
moon, fro m November,-1970. to June, 1971.
I .
.
Followingis a descripl.ve assessment that Mr. Wayne Kesinger, the counselor to the project,.subm
ted to me at the conclusion of-the
program iIme pat:iod (Attachment,B
observations and assessment
of the Hotline Program are cdmpletel
consistent with those of-Mr.
Kesinger:
\
Jose Doglio sociate Superinten nt Kankakee School Ditir t #11t 381 So. Fooeth Kankakee, Illinois 60901
7
4
4 -2-
IP
r"
a
.4.
EOPHGENCY smock, ASSTVANCE PROGRAM Tiblo 45 Cod() of .] ?ddoral RogulatA.ons
J00-71
adget Report abmitted By:
Kankakee School District Np. 111 381 South Fourth. Street i Kankakee -Illinois 60901
ITEM
AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR PROGRik, Grant Funds
.ExpendOd
.
,Balance
Employee Salarios:
Mobile Learning Unit:
.
2 Teachers 5- Woo 4 Teacher Aides @ $2600 Student Help Program: 1 Counselor 14 Students
.
$16,690.00 9,710.00
$17,138.314
850.00 550.00
850.00
-Or
257.140
292.'60'
$27,800.00
$27,573.75
$ 224.25
$ 2,960.00
$ 2,725.91
$ 04.09
$
$
.
-$ 14148.314
9,328.01
Emeloyeb Services and Benefits: -
Compensationlor participants: Contracted Services: r
Self-Concept Identification & Test
Wk
instructor @ 27 per day x 9 c Onferences 1 instructorjg.$75 per day x 3 days preparation
675.
225.
)575.00
-o-
.
.
225.00
'-o-
225.00
'225.00
-0-
'1,125.o0
$ 1,125.00
-o-
275.00
500.00 275.00
-o-
$
775.00
775.00
$
200.00
161.08'
.1 instructor a) $75 per day
43 days evaluation
!
Tri4
.
-
.
,
.
.
0
Instru9tor fdr Self-Cone wt Identification and Testing Workshops ...4 trips 0\$125 per trip,11.days @*$25 per diem:-
$
5oom
.
.
\
ofsiaLsRaimicilfEeriais: MLU -InverlwUmal Supplies & Testing Materials: obile Lealming. Unit
$
udent Help Program
$ 5oo.00
'631.85 316.63
948.48 ..3..
5
-, 5,
LI
.
381.99*
.$168.15' 183.37 351:52
,
.T.4
, I '
d et Fe ort Continued:
ITEM
Grant Finds
nded
Bat
Scoring Pre- and.Post- Tests: .
.Mobile Learning Unit: Data Treatment for if tests 1 Consultant Scorer 10 days $75 per day
$
75640
2 Assistant .Scorers 7 days 'each @ $37.50 per day
.
750.00
-0-
300.00
-o-
450.00
Scoring Incomplete Senten4e Tests
..1 Consultant Scorer 4 4ys ':@. $75 Pill. d4ir
300.00
2 Assistant Scorers 5 da
each @ $3740 per day
300.00
$ 1,800.00
.$35;960.00
GRAND TOTAL
t.
r. ooseph Do r,k. Assqciate Superrntendent ,Kankakee School District #111 -.
/90,/71
So. Fourth Kankakee, Illinois
\
60901.
.
.
$35,10.22
$ 850.78
q
The'Report of
the
Kankakee,11.1inoiS Desegregaticin ReportN
Report prepar d and written by V,(-illiam F. 'Anderson, 1Syracuse versify, consultant to the project.
Project Director was Randy Lindsey, Kankakee Public Schools
Project
s financed, in part, fran funds of the gency School Assistance Act
\
-
.
7
#
. .
/I
.
.
A Project Focusing on the Development of,Poative Self Concepts Among Students in a Reorganiz Mesegrated School Environment _
._
,Background to the Project
. . ,
.
? /
-,
.....
'
Prior to,Se/tember 197,0, the public schbols of
in a state of de feet° segregation. .
ee, Illinois were
This zuttOmerit was much more true of
/
grades K.6 than of the viper six grades.
..
,
The findings of jahuary 16,'1970 of
..
the /E.E.W. representatives called for the desegregation of faculty and students ,4.
i4 all schools; .
a
!
',
4
Workipg rapidly, on January 26, 1970, the School Board adopted
a stesolution'to meet the requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by-de-
,0
'
segregating stude4s and faculty in all 'schools.
Eurther, the Board directed
the administrative staff to fora a task force toaecomplish the following: 1.
To develop the components of the desegregation plan and to secure
educational economic benefits, 2:
To secufe-fideral-mnd-St4e financial aid,
as well as consultantship assistance, to bring abqut an in- service' program s..
for the school personnel, designed to focus on the development of positive self-concepts among students in a re-organized - disegrrated school epviron.
As a result of Pederal'funding, the program. was officially initiated on
November 1, 1970` Thus, the maximum time atonable for conducting all the aspects of the project was approximately nine months; probably too small a peribd to expect self concept changes.
The sire planning, pre-training of the
P
4
staff, piloting, the treatment, experiences of the pupils, and,the final analysi
of the results involved a relatively short period of-time.
Whether or not the,
project, and specifically the results, represent that which would have occurred under the condition of additional time and money. is'not known.
In reality,
;
that which has been attempted and accomplished should be viewed as an initial. re
pilot step of a project aimed at syttematical4 eval4iing the development of loositiv'q;delf-concepts among students in a re-organized, desegregated school
enviionment.
In the organizational'proposall stated were the following objectives: 1. 'To provide teachers with a better understanding of the students needs for developing a positive self-concept.
2.
To develop a core of trained. staff
members who could serve as a positive force in treating a: concern far develop-
Ing a student%S.posit've self-concept in an academic environment. -'
'
develop a plan fat or
3.
To
ting an awareness.of self-concept inferences and for1 .
_
.
structuring programs to\ nsure fair treatment to minority groups of students i
.
in the Classroom. The reorganization
desegregation planning implemented in the Kankakee 1
,
school district preceeded the'formal approval of the project proposal.
Thus,
no baseline data from tie 1969-70 school year existed one a systeMatic basis.
Today, students of different social, ethnic, cultural; and economic environments come together and increase the nortnal range of ditferences found in neighborhood schooli.
With this increase,of' heterogeneity it was likely that the mean achiev-
ment of many classes would decrease.
pre
This statement is,consistent with numerous
oils studies, as well as the 1968 results of the California Achievement Test tered in the Kankakee schools.
The research evidence 46n schools which
have moved from segregation to desegregation provided no legitimate basis for
implementing this prograon the basis'of.the criterion of, achievement.
Thus,
*
in the organizational planning, where the major objective was that of develop-ing and increasing . th pOsitive self-concepts of ,students,. current research in
education, and theory and research of psychology, were found to include aspects
9
-
:
which appeared important and:germane to the design of the poject. The Emergence of the Project Design The original proposal has established the goals of the
oject in terms
41
of ielt-concept changes rather than atteMpting\that which appe potential; that is', increasing acaden4c achieve e t.
that achievement would improve.
,ed to have less.
.
Obviously, it was hoped .741.
Without full recognition,, the staff had %
involved themselves in a deep theoretical and res educational, school,, andlearning psychologists.
.
eh argument engaged in by
emediation p ocedures,and
,
behavior modification techniques are the uin.things" for. many applied psych-, ologists.
For these people the primary method.tobring about posrve self0
concepts is to impc5ve the acquisition of skills, know opposite end of this ordinal scale is the belief of oth studehts having problems in the basic skiff areas will
,
dge, and facts.' On the psychologists that most
be signiTantly
helped by remedial reading or the like. Accordinito these psychologists, Muo. school underachievement is based upon attitudihal and emot onal characteriatips e .
.
rather than lack of skills.
Thus, there is the belief that a significant
\
increase id achievement eventually depends upOn 'reversing taVprocess from a . 'negative self image to a positive self-concept. .
.
.
.
With these polar elements manifested in theofy and proc z. urea, a signficant question remained for the planning sta
. % Could the project be designed
around the gbal to increase self-Concept or should a more tr 4
approach be utilized?
4
N
4
The final dddision rested in an answer
first of the Parts of the question.
remedial
-
yes to the
It must be admitted thatth consultant to
the project from Syracuse University helped clarify the issue.
The final decision
was to attempt to design this project to enable the answering-of the question:
-AO
!
t.
4
.
Org
'Does.a positive self-concept e4erge
a dacreaso of.dcademic deficiencies
,
.
through remediation'procedures, or
.
program designed tO increase "success 41.
identities," or bot14 or neither
1
. .
-
Following the aftinistra ive,dedision to develop a pla:d.ofdesegregation, . and its fUnding, much -in the
.
,
though neither the iirocedurei
or effecting_ change' nap or assessing the class-,
rooms had been decided upon,
o teams were hired and included idthapg pre planning
-
.
.
','
sessions.
.
.
of implementing policy hakto transpire.'
Each .of the' teams was led
,
.,
,
a former teach& with a goo
R
.
knowledge
'
I
' of the psychological principles which underlie behaviors .., 4
.
.1
.
two teller's aids.
In additio41 each_team" .
1
4
In,total, there were three blacks and three whites. t
, .
.
,
1
' /
nside2abie diOsure was gained through.theMeetings of the two teams with the 9 .0
.
...
'10
'.'building principals, the project director,, and the school psythologiCal consultant ,
from gyracuse University.
%.
Preceeding,boneurrent with, te f011owing the three IS
'N\
pre-planning sessions witbthe'eonsuitant, the teams and prindipals,Vrere involved sQ
in much professionel reading, observations, of other projects and discussion of f
'
.4.....dwaye of implementing this project.
One of the goals ok.the,project director.
and 4onsultant during theser-ix days of meetings was to gain involvement and, .
.
,
.
coMiitWent Pa the plext ok tile teams And principhst
Possibly a desCription'of
-:;,,,,,.
the proceiges
opment of the project design is, apprOpriatp
4 4
at this time. .
C
.
, .
,
..
.
The goal in thiepreparatory.period was to deveIbp a_de;ignstiat would.. result in systematically gained data.which would answer the questiots of the M.. project and.contribute to the knowledge of) the profession. .
Unfortunately,
the
. .
.
.
-% research'of many educational psychologists is so highly controlled that the ,
.
...
.
resillts are of dubious signiNionce for schools-where numerous variables cannot
,
/
11
-4-7,744-454..
57."4
.
. o.
.
14,
,
.
4.
,
e
.
-* 5.
1
6
...,....,__
.
4.
:
4
. v.
f
.
_,,,..k
v.
.
'
be4 4bnt led' and there are ,seveial interaction. effects opdratiag. 'Similarly, .
..
.
.0
..:
. .
i
7.
-, .
.
but 0 th side, mnch5of that which-take plice in,schoOls is merli. ...e ; opposite ,
4-....
/
-,,+.,
kr .
..5
.
.
.
and generalizabilty. i1,.
.
.
.
'Grades Involved%.in the,Frojectt.-
.
.
y
.
-
v
t
,,,.
A.
t.
0
.
the- planning. sessOns resulted. in
."
.
. -.
,
...
.-
the involvement of two grades, fourth and fifth, in thg prOject. 0. q `.
'
*...
,
A .
w
'
.., .
.
.., One of the important decisions made .. / e
..
,
.
I'
.
.
..
.
"felt`( to be'effectiVe but lackS zioificanlit, Vali
o*
To-attemit-to
V,,..
k
'fi %
.
.
Ireach.d. gneater;number was rejected on the basis of.4±±aited time and monies.
Tbie two schools,telebtld in luded all of the, fourth and fifth, grades Of the
.-
.,
study Population.
Each was. located in a predominantly black school community.
There was a tbtal of e7 classes in School A - Lincoln and 11' classet in School ,
Franklin.
In addition, the staff made the decision to involve as many classes
as possible.
-
.
5 Instrument Selection and Development A major deficiency of many studies involving the construct Of,self-concept is that too many scores or variables art sdlected which are only vaguely related
.
-.
.,..
to the basic variables or are not consistent With the , basic theotetical framewoik., . F ,
ak
e
i r -
4
It'is believed that the instruments modified and develoiedWould produce g 'ores .
'which permit the direct answering of the basid project questions.
These 'nstru -,
'ments were: ,
.
.1.. BrOokover's(1962) S.C.A., Self- concept of Aoade /
56
*
bAbility. 4 °
Scale, was modified to meet the age, grader reading; and ex4er- 4 iential backgrounds. of the children, of the, prOject.
at.
.
The responses..
to this i strument were interpreted as a measure of the academic self - concept Of-the respondents:
2
.,
-
A ,
2. .The
develo ed brCren!iP11, et.--st19651 permitted
an evaluation of the wil/iiagness of students' to take responsibility t.
-for their academic successes and for their academic failUres.
This
instrumeht reciALLI modification, in terms of the reading and inter.
pretive
acteristics of the ,fourth"grade;
Basically, it shout,.
he co side; d as an ifistruient'which differentiates between the I characteri tics of Ihdividuals.
The I is the willingness of the
responAent to internalize (to take personal or sqlf responsibility) his suCces
s and failures; the E is the tendency of the respondent
to externalize or give others credit for his successes; and blame
-
I
hl'sellm for his failure. .
,
3.' The third and .possibly the most important data of the prOject Were .
,
,
obtained through the administratioh of a specifically developed..
e
..t.
.
04 4
semantic differential- instrutent: 'Quoting asgood,/the mijor, dev1
eloper'of.this technique: :sop all the imps that inhabit the
.-.--
;'
\ k ) nervous-system - that qittle b ck boad in psychological theor
. .
.
Is
ing - the one we call /
it' held by common -consent ib be
.
1
..------
Ite most elusive.
Yet ----thiS; lieriabie'ii one of the most .
....
I
ortant determiners of human behavior" (1957). l
To measure the internal - ongoing meaningS (self-concept) held by'the..
.
.
.
.
,
.
students of this project, it wes necessarY to useflome Observable index. _
The
.-
"
search for such an index of meaning r-d-dhIted in the selection of the semantic e 'differential procedures of Osgood, et,. al. (1957). Among the reasons for this .
,,
choice was the fact that these procedures can be evaluated highly again4tthe
,"-
.
,
.
usualcriteria for mea,urihg instruments: \
.:-
sensit3ity4 sand utility.
,.L
.4 A
\\
,
.
*
A
objects
ty, reliability, validity
.:a
The semantic space factors seleCted were:
1.
evaluative, and 2.
oriented 4
activity.
These factors required the'subjects to respond to certain concepts
(i.e. school,
friends) in terms of certain'bipolar scales (i.e. gdOd As can be surmised, the .first factor, eyaluativel-is
bad, 'fact -'slow).
.1
measurement of the tendency of human beings to participate id some internal F
process(es) which are chiefly evaluative in ziature - a mode of evaluation.
Used:
r
were five scales (pairs of polar words) of which good:-bad had the highest load,.
ing.
The 'second.factorsassessed is that which pUood refers.to as-Oriented.
activity."
9'cales having high loadings and used in 'this project were:
Hot
,
cold,,, fast - slow, alive - dead, and difficult"- easy:
These two factors
account for approximately fifty percent of the semantic space;
.
the other six'
factors contribute tteother half.of* variance. / Due'to the, nature of the technique, a virtually endless number of concepts
\ could. have been selected T assessment.
,
bert.,the,criteriot of utility Was,:tte
.
, :,
most important in the sel; tibn proCesd.
The project staff selected the follow.; a
ing concepts:
school, teachers, me, and friends.
permit a
sessment of aspects of the academic sell-concept; the last
The first two concepts
divulged information about the social self-concept. The selection-of the bipolar slAled involved the utilization of the ing cis iteria:
The height and Rull.ty of factorial loadings.
Readability.
2.
,diffieulty of no higher than the third+grade.4(Thortdike-Lorge 1944). ,
.
utility value in terms of the selected lonespts.
3..Apparent
.
The procedures for assessment
,
were.among those recommended by the developers of the techtique '03
Pilot Study ,
,
rs.
\.
,
The motivations involved in the promotioh and conduct of .the.pilot study are difficult to describe.and evaluate. 'Among thode which were apparent to, the
41%
-fir_ k,1,
14 .
' ,
....
.
r . ,
. .
:.
S-"7"-7,
,
.
1.1
l
0 e,
,
,..;-,
....
.
.
l,
;
p;anners Were: ,-.
.
:.
-
,
1
.
,,
.
The need to test out the newly constructed. ,
%
.. -_.
,
this
instruments; e
s
incP.Ided; the evaluation of. the' reidability level, the preciseness of instructions r P
5
p
4
a.'
,
.
,
,
0
o
and
and thcipSubjective evaluation pf "desiiable group size," .. l',:../ .
:t. A'
the
2.
rfteed
to
4
. i
assess the similarities and differences between the two grades of the,two schools ,
A
..involve4' it the project. : If the two schools were. found (a was true) tO'be ot puligi posSesiing similar .
coraiosed y
... segments .
;,.
. -4.
;
.
4.
t
s,
self-concepts Irior to the treatments, . , ..
of th6final design 4WOuld. not be too rigidly'pres.cribed. ;
the
.,
-
.
,,
the three self4§onceptinstrumentd (Academic Self-Concepts, Intel. ... . . . lectuaV4chieveraent Responsibility 'Scale, and pie Semantic Differential),,were It Thus,,
.-
-,-4
A
.4..
.
:.
.
.
.
.
.....
adm3.ntsteres1 to a ,randomly. Selected sample ofgourth, an4. 'fifth, gra4eri of each I '
.
of the two
'
The iota].
schools.
pilot
sample .cosisted of 92 fourth anti 2 fifth. ;
'0
4
to control for sex 4fiere/itcs.
graderS. No 'atteiii was m
''
.
I
1"or each Of the. eleven scores the mesa, variance, and standard deviation., . .
--
cos.:fated b
school 04eby,gradi...,These pargilitedla st#iostical. anal,ysis
.
).
._.
-
,
:
:
-.-''.
pf the basic question of tie pilot,study -'.floW simiiar.or "different were the selfoncegts .(at,meaturiiilY of the-Mi.J.4j e. the same grade. liii atteladed .difterft entpeho91:8?
I f s il4larity'wat the' rule rather thp.4 the exceiAion.,. this !Mid,: .
J
-
.
".
.
.
....
result iri an /nerd e, in f'lexihsility_ in the. de-termination of. the final .project .
,
.
..
,
.
.
:
deSign,...
-
,g
. i'
. ..
..
.
4
'....
4
,
.Student's tudents$
.
.
,-
'Y t ,,,...P.. I
.
'''
\...,:.1,
\\
....'- , ;/-
',
statistic Wei employed to7.test:,*e significance:iof lean 4.-
,
. .-
in. \
differences. A .03 level Wa.l'istocetitad asiineeting 'the, criteria-of statistical .-;,.i
ificanee.
:.,
\
-'
,0-
.
.
-@i tit : 1
:'
:-,
-;
-
,!.
--,,
\
I:
4e...
-
:
-
,.
^
.,
c
Tile i'Wo fourth':giadere Iii.ftered Significantly on one of the .eleven self,. ,i : : -P4: : .: -:' .. , .
-
concept comparisons. 'On*he ..eValuatilfe factor of the semantic differential, .
where'responsas were ;lade tc".the concapt:' - teachrs. - the t was 2.55 p. (.05.
15
\
Y.
A A'
,
The fourth graders o
,
direction.
Lincoln School evaluated teaches in the more favorable, ./
None of the other ten mean differences approached significance / 4.=
Thus, emil arity etween the two fourth 'grades leis, the :0
. _
rule and
not the/.
.
.!
exception.
,
\\
.: :.
.4
In the, fifth grade, the two schools differed:significahtly on two of t 'e, , ; eleven mean comparisons. The largest diliference wasion "the taking of res ons.
1,.
,
ibllity for failures," part of the I.A.11'., where the pupils of 'r= -/
,
scored significantly higher (t = 2.40).
School
Once again, there was mn.ch
re
*i
similarity between,the pupil of the two schools than differen4rs As a result of this aspect of the pilot study, itwas co'
uded that there 1.
was sufficient similarity between the two schools topermit some flexibility in .
the development and decisions relating to the final, desi
Sinai there, were
three significant 4fferences, the analysis le odvari: ce technique seemed to / ----___
.
g
be a- logical el4oge among the existing :statistics. .
.
., 4.
In terts,Of that which w& referred to as e logistics-of the project, the pilot study revealed to the staff' that as Mich .as twenty perent Of the _ -
..
/
pupils had readability difficulties, that the testing groups should be kept in'slte to a number not greaternhan 25, and that the administration of the
instruments should not tOe place in a room so. large tbat SOme_pupils would ha.ve difficalty'clearly "dewing the images On,the scree/from an overhead projector.
As a result ofothesa observai1v14
decided to make spedial.provisions
f801040 students who might have a reading problem. .
,
i*E4lopeltdthese
MI6 :pre- *and post- test's
pupils_ would take place'in groups not larger than three. .
One member from a team wouid. be responsible for'clear coMmunication Of the' 'instructions of tie instrument.
-6.
1
'I,
=
One -of the most sigdificant and perplexing aspects of the pi
concerned grade rather than school differences.
The word perpl
study
is used
dde to certain Significarit differences between the two groups on th- pilot
study results. ,Rather consistently (15 out of 22 comparisons), the
oUrth
graders responded, as compared to the fifth, in the more ,favorable The reasons for this are not know]; but deserve speculatioxY.
ection.
Unless t ese grade
differences are acknowledged, the result& of the project could be majp interpreted.
Since the fourth graders obtained more healthy seli.reonc. t
scores than.
fifth graders, it could be that the longer one remains
elementary grades the poorer "ones" ecademic self-concept,becomes.
mis-
the
If true,
,lp.ck of decline from the beginning to the conclusion of the ikojec,co
be
perceived as being educationally significant in spite of the feet.that a stet.
istically sighificant change might not take place..
,
Resultant Projedt'Design The procee'd'ings of the.plAn'ill
sessions and the- analysis of the pit
stu4resUlted ihtthe.selettion of two basic treat ments and four apalSrsis
ells.
*
Following the dismission treatments,
t
theS
and by schools will
basic treatments, a description by class s, by le made.
,
,
In Figure J., a two by.,tw 7 N
.treatments were Glatseris.cl
the mobile learning unit,
ireatment design is presehted.
sroom meetingq and,the remediatio,
eluded in the fi
A
;
es.a pre - post - control. .
procedures of
is the\number of students who
-
were involveddn each of the, treatments, as well
the nUmber which was used
Thus, .the tour basic ce
1; 0Meetings agsroom Meetings .
he twoi
s of
.
tlie\ project were :-.
participating, i
ended discussions ,
'consistent with the writings of
W
Glaisdr (
..,
total of 150 pupils were involved in
ese discu
A17
9)
claises with a ocadures., The goal was
1
.
i
.
.4.
consistent with the writings 4,of, Glass
in that it was hoped that these would
1
\
increase 'he positive pelf-concepts of the children.
For approximately thirty
minutes, tiree times per week,'..tb.ese children were removed .from the regular A
class procedures and involved in the's:Ten-
ed dismission&
These lasted for
-
A
a period which began approximately January. 15th and. were ,concluded approximately %,
c
four months later.
Six classes lAre selected for this'
eatment, three of the
fourth grade and' three in the fifth. 2.
RAmedia ion Procedures (Mobile LeariangThit) = Bgre the
eams
. .
concentrated upon improving the academiq skills and knowledge of the pupils.
""
Individual pupils or small groups t in the renmdiation program.
were
Not all pupils received these remedial atte
,l.for precisely the same amount of time. ,
removed from the classioomcto be engaged ons
HowAver 111 were involved in
.
program for the approximately four months period.
(Note..
The reader 3.n
sted
in a more dkailed'description of the procedures and techniques utilized by the teams and their inembers is invited to Cqntact the Project Director of.the Kanka-,
kee fIchOol System.) Here again, six classes were randomly selected for inclusi
ion in this treatment, thred for each grade.
However, an unforeseen circumstance ,
.
..
resulted in ji decrease, of the Anticipated size of the cell ,(150) to:133.
was due to 'the refusal...y One classitiom-teacher to permit her student
ticipate .n the ridediation_Program.
This
to par e. ,o
She strenuously objected to the
removal
from-the classroom. sUntOrtuftately, this did not occur until approximately two
weeks:had transpiredAt the period. 1
3;
Combined Open - ended Discussion and iemediation Procedures - Each of.
thePg.six classes (N=146) participated in both of the previously described ,
treatments.
This cell/permitted an analysis of whether atombination of .5/
$
treatmentd would be more effective than eit
by itself. .
4.
i
\
Control Group - This cell consisted of 191 pupils who participated
in the study only to the extents that they too
the pre- and post test measures.
They represented one baseline for compariso since-ill were involveckin the regular claisroom activities but were not nvolved in either of the two treat.
meats.
Remediation
7
/
Control group
G.
Remediation (Mbbile.leancing-
Unit) Group
A
(N =191)
N .--= 133
'
S.
S S
E ,R
Open -enqed:
+
Combined treatmMat.)
grouisb-r7.-
discussion group
N=150
V' = 146 -S
?igure 1 - The 2 x 2 treatment design In terms of the schools involved in the cells of tae sturdy, the following / .
is a description of the arrangements by schools, by grades, andby treatments.
Liner School 1.
Open-Rnded Discussion - four classes, two'for each grade.
This is the Glasser plus, and remeiatibn minus cell, of the design.
\ '2.
.
Both Open - Ended' Discussion and Ramediatfon Procedures -
\
four classes, two for each grade:
cell ofthe design.
.
This is the plus, plus \
a
'3. At"
Control Group - the 191 pupils of this cell of the design'' we're selected from this school.
41
This` was possible due to
.
the results Of the pilot study..
In Xeferring.to Figure 13
this is the minus '- '"minus cell:
Franklin School'
1 .
1.
Open-Ended Discussion Only - two classes, one for each grade. TheSe 'complete theiequiraments of the cell.
The participatAg classes rather than pupils selected fraM each clasi were
\
1.
randomly setected from those aisting fin each school.
.-
This was necessar
the cooperation of teachers was to be obtaiited and maintained.
if
Taus, the, treat-
ms4 design, included acontrol groupof 191.pupils and $, total of 429,involied it-the treatment groups, -
.
.
.
.
. ",.
1
Thee data analysis 'design' appears iu Figure 2.
prior to the initiation of
A
the treatments all six hundred and twenty pupils participatedainNe-testing. This produced'the baseline data which was statistically compared to the post -
test
and-permit evidence .of change.
,t
.
4 J. -
t
20
a
,
Treatments - Grade
Pre Btolect Da a
.ft<
Treatment __Post Project 1 PeriodData
Al
Open -ended
Inte
4
DisCussion
etual Achievement
Re
Inteilectual Achievement Responsibility Academic Self Cdncept Semantic Differential
11101
Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Academic Self concept, Semantic Differential
ibility
-Aced
5
Nigel;
c' Self` Concept..
'Sew is Differential
Remedial
'._
41,Procedures
.
5.
,
,
CoMbined:
Intellecal Achievement"
Responsibility Academic Self concept -Zemantic Differential
,.-
.
.:-..
Intellectual Athievement
_MOOD
Reponsibility
A ,e4 "xt
Intellectuals Achievement
Responsibility Academic Self Concept Semantic Differential
Academics Self Cohbe -Semantic Differential »
4
Control'-
i5
Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Academic Self Conbept Semantic DifferentiEif
FignIse II - Data Analysis IssWa"
.
No,
MI=
Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Academic Self Concept Semantic Differential
^k .
Results of the Project Due to the massive amount of data and the tremendous number of permatati certain decision's had to be made about what to include in this,results section .,
il
.1
i
the report. a
.
.
\
.
.
,
It ivhoped that most, if. not all, of the decisions were adequate. .
-,,
.. ,
involve, the,
The data inn be presented in five parts.: The' first three of descriptive statistics which had two functiOns.
,
.
resent
Numberone .thejserve
ion
as,
.
baseline data and give basic information about the nature oepapil responses ,
,
.,
V
*
out the involvement of "blocking."
4
,
specifiltoindividual treatments. ,
\.
Thus, they wilknot include data which are In the last to'parts, the ,most important a
0
1
the evaluation of the treatments, differences-due to race, sexy and treatment ...
be discusse
11
Whenevar Appropriate, analyses by grade will he presented. .
.
0,
spOnses of the ilothSample.
Po d in Table 1 are the means and standard de ,
-;..
,
0
fables for the 620 pupils of the proledt. 4,
4ions for the eleven var
,-
.
,
.The top two rows
the means
aaestandard deviatisons for the eleven variables prior to treatment. *ihese
are 11.1 t4
01,
,followed by the post treatment data.
The last _row is' the comparison of the pre
and post project means; these are presented as difference scores.' knlaus_scor
.'
.
41
.
.
L means that there was a. loss betweed preanal post , trgatment periods. ..., .
,
.
these date,two special notes must beackftowledgid. .
,
Come
Number one was that the ,
,,
.
pilot s
ndudted in December of 1970 produced results which strongly
.4
A
indicate that the students ofNthege two schools, and of these two grades, shove
significaft dedlines on thescores on mostof these eleven variables from to fifth grade.
Exdept for the Semantic DifferentialNVariables
of "Mean
,e
"Friends," the, fourth grade results were much more positive than those. of th fifth.
The second point needing emphasis is that for two of these scores, t
1
t 2.
As.
....
. p
d. .
.
.
responsibility for successes and taking responsibility for failures, the total .
-
.M8XiIIIIM range was a mere eleven
0 - 10.
Thus, there could be less t
,
chance of apparent change on these two constructs. , Of the fourth and fifth graders originally selected or inclusion in the ,
,
..
studi;°thetotaIwhs,661, 620 were present for both pre-
an
,
post testing.
This
,
final
total
consisted,
or 248
white males, 71 black-males; 2
white females, and
81 blaCk'females.- These figures are quite consistent withthe bl ck ratios of .612e school community and of these two grades.
white
For, the:total school
system, the'1969"0 school year figures showed that.thete were 23.6% blacks. The 1970-71 quantities for,these two grades' indicate that there was a 25 : 75% . ratio of 'blacks and whites.
I
.The mean gain scores from pre-and poet treatment showed eight losses and .
three gains.
These results -'ere very consistehtwitik the pilot, study results. ,
pis of these two grades, in Kankakee, Illinoi :grow decreasingl positive about .
'
the numerous aspects pf schools as they progres 'to fifth grade.
thrOugh and from the fourth
Most of the eleved`riean gain,ic res were quite MOT. The
exceptions were the constructs O'Schoolc Eftluative and Teachers - Evaluative.
,
.
Each trifthesetwo had laxgelminus 'gain scores.
scores were quite smol 'with Priem . .
/.
All three of the positive gain.
- OtAitnted. Activity being the largest,
,
.,
-
...
f...
\
)
o'
23
.
S.D.
SOD
.14
.
1
A.
,0:12-.
-0.25
Lo.-41
I
.3.49
19
3.62
19.87
5.85
26.99
iA
5.78
27.24
4...88
,
,
4.45:
8:66',. .6o
26.42. 18.66 /-
,
Post Treatment
N-)
7.1/
-19.33
Pre Treatmgnt
28.34
.
Teachers Ever. Or'. Act.
/=
6.14
28.47
6:3;
28.18
1
-1.92 -0.67
f
0.29
5:98
0.5?
3.65
20.00
ek'
19.48
4
4 ,
-0.24'
1.83
8.01
1.59
8.?5
.l8
.13
.6o
2.00
6.78
E.I:A.R. Success --Failure
pojec
Friend's al. Or. Act.
Mean Gain Scores' (Post Minus Pre)
Or. ACt.
7.71
.
1
Me.
-Eva.
.17.58
A
-4.48
17.99
Acit'.
X4.06
6:82
26.52
k
School Eval. 'Or.
;.
k.
Pre and Post.Treatment Data fox.= 620'Pupils-of the
.TABLE t
-0.36
5.94
33.09
4'
5.99
83;45
S.C:A.
,
4
P.
B. 'Multiple Regression Analysis
Stepwise - N =620
,
The correlational.,matrix (Table II) is presented for twO reasons.
The most
,
basic of`these Vras to answer the question of whether of not inferential statistics .
and specifically, apaiisis.4of coy
ce Were required and would be, app opriate.
.
'Unless there was a significant correlation between the scores on pie- and post testing on, the same measures, analysis of covariance would not be n
ded.' In
J
other words, there would. be =thing to covary out.
Since each of the correlat-
.
ions between t
of the same measure'was significant, additional an
ses were
4
t,
'appropriate.
The (second major reason for the inclusion 6f, this matrix
as the
,....- :.---. ---
. .
.
i
need to check the correlations of each sc.7i611Tii----ers on the pre r- post treatment perio(ds.
the most significant finding_was.tbe,relattve.lack ..
4
.
,_
.
of statistical significance. 'Ibwever, the Semantic Differential responses to .
.
-
'two school factors correlated significabtly with the same scores on the teacher .,\ ... , ...
-
.
factors.
The remaining few significant CorrelatiOris,Sboired no consi tent
N
*
patterning.
4/ -
A
.t
Ia
./
'4
,e
a
TABLE It COtrel tion
eatment (E) - Post Treatment (P)
Self Concept Scores, N=620
\
\,
4
E 4
E5
E6- E7
.11
.06,
.16
.33
.69
.08 -
.27
.25
.4o
.09
1
E,2
E3
5'7.
:33
:34
.35
."4
Matrix of Pr
E8
E9
E10
.112',.05
-.10
.03
.23
-.02
v.08
.00
.05
.06
.15
.08
.-.01
-.09
.22
.11,.
.11
:05
-.o6
.16
.05'
.11:
+.05
.30.
.
.15
P 4
.o8
\
.16 .15
6 R\:7
P. 9
\
:oo
429
,00
.56
.32
.i3'
.37
:§
.08
.
.36
.29
.09,,
.7
.15
.13
.10
.05
.cila
.08
.16
.12-
111
.11
.09,
.11
:11
.05
.05
-.02
.08 .10
.i7
.27
.05 -
.2
.11
-.14
01 5.
,p6
.06
.13
.00
-.03
.02
.00
-.01
-.01
.39'
.18
.15
.,02
.27
3
.04
.15
-.03
.061
4.02 to
.P
P
.
.E..13$
-.03 .62 -
.
P 05 =
'4 1,'T 1
School-EvaluatiVe School-Oriented Activity \E 3, P-5. Me-Evaluative E 4, ,F 4 Mi-Oriented Activity 4 5, 15.5. achers-Evaluative P 6 Teachers-Oriented Activity 2, '11)4
I
E '7, P 7,
E 8,
8
E 9,`,P 9
P 10 E 11, P 11
Friends-Evaluative Friends- oriented Activity Success-Responsibility .
Failure - Responsibility Academic Self :Concept
.
,1
4
.1*
----
r
e.nd Sex but not by Treatibent
The results included under this label arse Presented in narrative, rather
ie
II%
than tabular form. Included:trill be a brief descripti9n of the, pre- post treat/
4
ment means by race and by sex.
,.
The white ma es involved. in this project but not
.1
stated by, ade or by
treatment totaled 044., The, mean scores bn t145.,,pre-: &d pos testing periods Tb showed. nine losses. .The two largest were on the factors of School - Evaluative, .
Teacheis - EValuative.
The two gains were not as large they mete on the
factors of Friends - Evaluative, and Me - Activity. For two`scores' there was no change_; these were"Me - Evaluative arid. Friends,- Activity.,
ca...1.iy
The black male group, 'whicb: consisted of 71, showed seven mean losses on
the eleven scores. Of these there ,
one large ,loss; this being, School - Eval-
.
.
gA-pr; tie 1 gest was Friends - "Evaluative; the other three
'OD the
,
tivry,
were 'Friends -
if
Ac ilrity, and School -- Activity.
'The 220 white, feizales
L
ad the greatest numbeT of. mean losses hebAn.
%\. project scores There were ten mean losse s, the largest )3eibg uative pd. second largest be Teachers - Eia2.uativa., The one
,
gain s re was on the gonstrUct'o --
-4-,
t
.
.
,\
,
\
fends.- Activity. For threw.scores the
ange was so qmall. t at basically- these should b described ,
\ 11.',
.
.
.
as
"no change," t
t C`TesPonsibility scores for 4ccesse.k. and. t lures and. the Me - Activity ,,; .
res.
.,
.
)r
.
....., 4
\
----a
Thatzlieens for
th--,
81 black feMilas showed. eight 141'966' in the prOject
Tbe, gzeatest Via SchOoi
-,Evaluative
and
Teachers
.. - Evaluative. Of
s, the'largebt was PriandS - Evaluative. Thee ottibr.,two, gains ds -- Activity and. Me "Lai:iv:kW. ti
,
., \ .
;., \
,
,
\i,,'--
ti ,:
8
.....r \.; s .:.
*8
\
4 s
01
st 2
,
In stramary,,,probably.the iatbeklortazit 'finding '
eleven
.
,
scores?* the two races and
... ,
i
x
.
,.
.
.
...4.'
s. White females had the
1
s
highest number of losse, followed.
.
.,.
sexe,s -(19.:tho2itregard for treatment)-
two
was that the 'four groups. had'more loss0s-:that s
about the; means fbr these
closely`
one was the most dramatic , in that it shared the N., -.
scores,
eatest *loss for each group. .
4
This .was School '- Evaluative.
; the eleven
by white. miles.
.
,
The second. largett loss 'for E.1.11 but the-white_ _: females was Teachers -,Evalualtive. .0c -Ole gain scores, the most consistent
\
. .. the Friets. - E7.1uative..,concept,. Vie e.tception, -, '-." N X . white female's, showed:gr. atest
improvement was found o
.
.
esi.1-'4.encis',..4cPik4tv',, , ,-.;:,,' Mean and Dispersioh. Results, Race by Sei-13y.,Treatment'gain
.
.
D.
4
..
,
-
1
,
.
/..1.
..
...
1
....
The fourth step in this, analysis1,vofthe resUlts. involved the, presentation "A , I .-', ''t ssz,\ i6 of the meats and. standard? Aevi,..e,tici fOr the eleven. scores. Mese are shown by ,
e
race, sex, 'and. treatment ill Tabl6P 3 -, Ct:. 'These tables include the descriptive.. .,
ir
-..
,
f
the effects
..
,
,.
7
than gains during th project 'peri
d
.
f losses i' apd ,Here,.as Well as on the previous sex,) showers: higher number
\ .A
following pages, g 4 ,c6ies were computkforthe eleven variables of the , study. . / . o. When the preteiti score was the highest of the two it was an indication of a. .
.
*loss.
,
.
/
'7,-
.
,
:
`
.-
.,',
-
.
.
The re
\
'
.
ts, of the fOur control groups are found in the first , column of the :. , ,,,, four tales. The Aniallst number of losses was manifested by the white males and , black, females; each of-these Lad seven losses. At the other extreme the ..,
.
,
g
.,.
,
treatments with the cont,Yol group:
y
r
.
. the ireatme ts can be analyied `througlileomparison,ot each of th
All our control /groups (raze
.,/:'
,
statistics concerning the preT., aid posttreatment results., The control, groups twill be discussed girst sin the repre7e4t baseline data. -11,ypotheses-abotit
;
..
°'''
,
,..s
,
,
.
black'males, .who had:ten loises.
eight lOSses.
The rPmAining group, the white females, had
'These'ddta of the control groups were presented since they are
important in the analyses. of. change.
From this point, the'major presentation -
,
will be the =Ores. of the pUpilS involved in each of the groups, control and
E
treatment. Coritrol -.
.
:Thelihitemale!control, group ...
'.' .
i
.",
contained
pupils which.it-the total
.
mf
.
tie-two grades.
As bentioned prevtOusiy, their responses showed losses on ? .
.
- ,
,
.
seven of the eleven scores. .,
,
:Of thelelOSses, two were very large statistically;
s
these were on on the factors'of Teacher - EValuative and Schobl - Evaluative. In
sizeable
/addition, a
occurred Jaethe Teachers
- AntiVit.4r,
.
scores.
. -bgain-of any magnitude was. found on the fiends - Evaluative, construct .
Otheiteins were academic ;elf-concept,4and. Me - ACti
said Me -
,
The only
.
The
evaluative,
tithidwere very small: The responses or the 'nineteen black males of the control ,group were some-
what different. _
The number of losses increased to ten of the eleven scores. . .
.
,
'
'.These.blick males showed a huge loss on tick Sehool --Efainative concept and a as.
51.
. very large loss on the Teachers - Evaluative score.. Additional large losses were n the Teaellers - Activity. and"Friends - Evaluative scores.
The only gain
, .
-
was a dr. 7.on the academic self-concepteit. ,..
.
e e -
'
:
-.-
.
-
evens scores of th white'*imales control .group included
,
eight mean
:
,"
/losses. / Two of these were quite large; they,were Scho61 ,- Evaluative and Teachers
.4
Evaluativ.' Of the three,gains, the largest Was on ,concept.
the, Friends
One of the gains was very q111011 this
- Evaluativ7
Me - Activity.
29
The responses of the 24 black females sho d seven losses and three \
,
'4°
insignificant
gains. The remaining ing score was
e of zero difference between
the pre- and past testing. Of the _seven' losses the largest was School N
,
,
native, 'followed by Teachers - Evaluative. The e is , no genuine reason for , . desCri ing the three gains' slice the largest wa a mean difference 425. ...t -----......./ --.-
.
In the 'remaining part of tatedescriptive analysis evaluation of the , performance of the treatment groups-will be described by'race, and sex. These
a
%.
.
,
results are found. in Tables- 3-6.
.
:I
Glasser Treatment Group -
Of the C4a.sser treatment groups, the
greatest number of gains was obtained by the Bl
est number-of osses and the males. The highest-ntunber of
.
s
'1.osses was Atained by white moles. The two
ups of females were quite :siskijar-
as to losses and gains'. The Wiaite males' (N=AB) sowed losses on' ei t of the eleven scores. The , . -4 , two- largest'losts were School Evaluative and T achers - Evaluative.% The _.
.
latest gain was obtained on the cOncept of Friends - Activity. There was ;very .0 'little' change on:the risponsibilitY 'scores and. the School - Activity concept. 7
.
7
,
The blaCk males who showed. five losses 'andl six gaps had their highest
'
minus score on the concept of School - Evaluative' . Of the six ,gains,the' largest #.1
two were Friends - Evaluative and Friends - Activity. Thus, we see a pattern - :. .. ',, which seeinsto be ei e lug; this being,. as school, is evaluateid as less important;
4
.
!
I
,
friends are perceived. as being \
'
....,
1
\
\
,
.
,
.
.
important and a source of greater participption., The mean scores of the ,3 white.femiles showed. six losses and five gains .
\ \
' during -the
pre -post period.
Sciool. - Evaluative.
more
,,h
/ Of the six losses, only one was large; this was
Of the five/gains) only
was, sizable; this was Friends -
,,
4
4
realm, this gra4p,
Activ.ity.
c
es very iittle\as
a. resn\l.t
treatment.
l
Y
however, when contrasted to the =o
of group of white females* the
appear to
have changed in the desirable direction.
The scores of the 22 blaVeMiles showed seven lasses and However,
one of thede mean changes was greater than 1.00;
loss score on School_- Eyaluatiye.
our gains.
this being, a
The other six losses were not as large as .
i.00.
of the four gains, the largest was academic self-concept which was .73. .9
Remediation
The reiediation group, locally. known as the mobile le
the most consistent results among the race and sex groups.
units, showed The range.of losses
.
,
.,
4
4
.
-.
V"-'----
was from six'to,seven of the eleven scores for all four groups, Although ,
...--
.
,
.
A
-r:
might be vieWed.positivelylit'wei a decided impTovemeiat over the control 4. I f ' . , . . .)'%f t `. .
.. ,
A
up.
E
,,...
Tne'White'male grouplwhiCh-toniisted ,of 49, showed six losses'.
_
t
.
7
.6
s
of these vasjargeObis being, Bchobl gain;'
- Evaluative.
the highest was Friends - Evaluative.
slay no change it-these were &
one:
.
There was no really
. ge
On two.conceptsthere was b = i
-, Activity a48. Fr tends - Activity.
The nutb
'of lobSes was the smallest for the four groups of white males. 4%
Black males, N -18, showed seven lasses Intween pre-. and post testing. .,,,,..
.
The
.,
/
: .
: /largest of theiewas Teachers - Evaluative,' followed by School - EVaivative.. One _ .
,
-
,
-.
1,f
A A
of-theig0414 vas SlitP ekieble; thq was Friends -.Evaluative. .Two,
other
i
t
sc res,
.
4
wete worth no4iig* Friends :'-',',"Ativity. and. School..-Aitivity. . 1 . . 0. . . ,, r 6
-,
--.
t.
he white females (1/=.48). who =dement the remediatiOn progbam, 'showed six .
pre
'
.
.'.
:it-treatmentlosses. 'The
\ highest three
-..
_
.
%
of,t/pse were, inrank order, Tea-. .
.--
x -
/
,.
oilers - Evaluative, TeaChers - Activity and SchOol - Evaluative.
-
q
Of the four
.
gains the 4ghest two were Friends -.ActiVity'and acadamiaaelf-ConCapt. r
There was.
\ ,
zerOchange on one score.
4
-
,
,
v \
..
ghe 'black , females .involved in the remedia4on program (N=17) showed
\
..
.
\
...,
.
sii.losses,'Our_gainal and one score of zero chige.
Of the six losses,
4'
one'wesvery-large;
-this being, teacher.., Evalastive.
The other three which
were -large were School. - Evaluative, School - Activityca.nd academic self-'
concept.' gf the four gains; bnly One was iart and this was,Me - Activity. .4
Any statuary of thp, *eitiltsiof the Mobile learmingilnii - remediation must include the fact that the nuUher one!loss wet Teachers. . Evaluative. For all of the other three groups School - Evaluative showed...the greatest loss.
Why
the students who uAderwent:partiCipatiOn in thiO.reMediatiod IzOgraakeViluated
Oeaehers so lowly if ngkknoWn. .
Perhaps' this chtitgeFas due to ,a contrast
between their regular'class'teaehers and the mobile learning unit teams. Combined treatments .
,
.
The fahr subgroups Who received both treatments differed considerah2t4n .
h irsain scores. .
,
7, ,
\''
Por some reason the white males (N =50-) participating in
4
litreatments shaved coneiClefalilyanore losses
than the
control
group.
these,.
v
t males'
losses on ten oS theieleVeUabores.
Two
,of
these were very
'Y?.
.
1 gei Sehoold.,- Evalmative'dnd,teachers ='EvaluatiVe.
the..only gain was Teachers
Activity..
In contrast to the white males, the black males shoWed Seyen gains and only fe
Fourof these gains canbilbe described. as heing'iarge to
very. large. 'Ate Teachers
ative ecote increased 6.44. points, Friends:-
\ ,
Evaluativ eh
d in the-pais direction
4
Friends -1ActiVity
Th
4444,, School - Activity 2.81,
and.'
largest lose was on the academic self- concept
*core: the'white females leases as 'the control
o%partibi UP
it both treatment's showed as many
Of these eight losses, not one was outstlndingly
32 !;
-
, I high. ghe highest was SghooI - Evaluative, followed. by Friends - Evaluative. and-Teachers - Evaluative.
All of the three gains were qmn71, with School -
Activity being the largest, followd by Friend's - Activityand, willingness to take responsibility for one's failures:x,
The black females who participateein both treatments showed five losses, five gains, and one score of zero change. EValuative had the largest loss.
by Teachers - Activity.
Once again, the concept of School -
In this negative direction\this was followed,
Of all four groups, the black females shaWed the high,
est quantities of the gain scores.
The three scores showing' most improvement
were Friends - Evaluative,, Friends - Activity, and academic self concept. ,
Hardly needing pinpointing is the fact that the blacks pupilS.,reskonded
much more favorably to the combination of the treatments' than the whites...The blacks showed four and five lossesi seven and six gains.
The whites showed ten
and eight losses; these were equal to or greater than the losses of the contro groups, /
TheiYeaderof this report should not conclude that the remediation
[
Prograzi for blacks.
.
bestfor whites and exposure to both treatments is more.effective This would be a misinterpretation of the results, since no one
knows haw the blacks would respond to the open-ended discussion groups of Glasser if whites were not present.
.
33
27.48 6.6o
4.35
1.67
18.3o
19.78
8.23
6.15
33.67
6
7
8
9.
10.
11
3
2
1
9:3,8..
26:08
5
.
34.16\
6.10
7.80
19.66
s8.80
1.57
6.08
2.26
2.03
4.48
5.57
5.7o
10-.79
2491
School-Oriented_Activity Me-Zvaluative
School - Evaluative
6.09
2.18
5.26
4.03
6.33
5.36
9.72
aso.
S.D.
Post
19.95,
27.90
15.90
21.71
M -=79
M
Post
-------414e-Oriented Activity 5 -7ftchers-Evaluative 6 Teachers - Oriented Activity
,7
4.52
19.84
4
6.46
27.80
3
5.66
16.42
8.68
S.D.
Pre
2
-I.,. 24.03
N.,79
M
Scores Pre
h:k-
Control
3
1.3) 35
6. Sjo
27.98
19.65
27,09
8.4
3.28
6.6o
29:23
6:85
2.04
1.82
3.58
6.96
9 10 11
.
8'
32.00
7.08
,P0
19./70
28.32
18.26
26.32
/19.74
z7.94
16:44
24.10
N,50
Pre
15.95
1.61
1,85.
'3.?2
5.66.
*I*
:Failure-ResPonsiblany Academic-Self Concept
.
11.96
S.D.
Post
25.28
19.80
31.26
6.80
7.88
19.82
.7.92
2.02
1.89
3.05
29.06.,1 5.35
4.04
9.04
2.85
"740-2:- 6.43
17,10
21.70,
N=-50
14
Post
4.91 ''18.94
7.61
3.19
5.48
5.12
7.75
S.D.
Pre
Rcmediation
Friends- Oriented AqtiVity Success-ResponsibilIty
/7 Friends-Evgluative
6.31 32.93
1.87 /6.46
8.09
3.91 20.21
6.21
3.86 a8.42 >4.98
5., 95
-
3.95
6,71
7.68
S# D-
Post
,-
\4.k3
24.%e6\
-757
Post
3.68- 17.64
5.76
8.30' 1.32
19.35
28.82
18.98
30.07
20.00
26.77
17.82
26.95
N ''57
-Pre
Glasser'
Self,ConceptScores; Race13-y-Sexitt.:t4ent=k1hIte Males
'TABLE
=
31.31
6.97
.8.19
20.74
29.48
20.31
28.55
20.08
p7:87
18.98
25.37
N.-62
IVI
Pre
.
22.95
N=62
M
Post
20.98
27.82
7.07
1.96
1.46
3.61
31.11
6.45
7.92
19.97
5.96 '29.00
3.7o 18.69
7.99 ,24.81
3.41
5.66
3.83 17.82
8.5o
Pre S.D:
--Both "Treatments_
7.00
2.27
2.03
3.27
6.36
'4.14
9.43
3.74
6.04
4.85
8-.98
S.D.
Po4t__
8.
1.46
8.63
9
6'
5
4
2' 3
11
3.91
.1
X,
,.
28.06
88
41.40
1.90
2.03
3.86
7.99
-4,81
-
B:k., -
Pre
,
24.89
,
11.18
M
Pot
26.61
28.72
19.67
28.50
11"
5.00
.
7
It
28.00
439
25.28
18.89
25.22
N-18'
2.61'
.
1.74
3.23
6.13
32.83
7.44
t
7:83
19.33
6.50
1.69
1.89
6.03'
26.06, 7.39
'4.80
6.56
.3.79
6.78
3.89
7.50
Friends- Evaluative
1
.
-
'
...
31.89
6.56.
7.39-
l20.72
28.39
19.17
25.61
20.72.
'24.61
19.94
23.61
11,18
14
Post
Rexediation
,Pre 14 --E.D.
Pre
,:--11:2-61----20.06
7.99
2:87
--.
4.51
5.47-
8.201
.Post S.D.
33.06- 4.00
.
8,- Friends-Oriented Activity 9 Success-Responsibility ---------10. Failurd-Responsibility .- 11 -AeademIc_BelfConcept
32,72
6.17_2..60- 6.11
7.72
3.43 ,20.56
,
5.49
5.30
,
2.74 .20.17
4.97
7.61 2.8
19.56
A
2.7.72
_
5,73=7, ..5°
*28.1i "7:51
:19.67
27.44
5.31-20.00
8.79/7
4
773.9r
,
Glasser
--.- .----
5,48,72
.
-
14
Ike .,
.1118.
----ry
S.D..--
,Telchers-Oriented Activity
'Teachers - Evaluative
Me-Evaluative Me-Oriented Activity
SchOol-Oriented lr
'
ivi*y
35.21
's
School- Evaluative.
34:74
5.21
i.-.2
4.83
20.26
8
5.89 2.n
25.6
27.895:59
7
10'
18.47
20.63 4.37
24.63
6
'
8.36
28.63
.,5
-
3.76
19.89
(.4
19'.63
26.42
27.42
3
5.75
17.37
'19.05 '5.86
23.42
14,,,19
2
,
M
'TABLE
*
.16
3:71
2.20
1.94
3 :48
6.60
r
4.05
6.54
-5.93
5.02
S.D.
Pre
-
33.19
6.19"
8.00
19.0o
*24.19
-
5.27'
2.01
2.07
5.18
7.88
6.47
21.06 ° 9:31
19.65
26.50
17.88
27.13
N-
M.
Pre
.
-
31.19
5.81
7.38
21:44
28.63
19.88
30.50
20.25
27.75
'
20.69,,
26.31
kr=-16
a
Post
Both Treatments
4.31 A119.,13
10.22
3.77
6.31
4.24
'8.79
S.D. '
Post
Self; Concept Scores, Race by Sex by Treatment-Blac,Males
Post ;---POSt'
29.11
5.58.
S.D.
Pre
Control
1
11--19
14
Scores 'Pre
L
5.43
-2.11 2.40
4.43
8.98
3.14
5.77
5.07
7.43
3.65
.'6.31
S.D.
Post
.
.
6
3 4
'
I
:i=,.:-_,,-":;-Orented
4.53
2.16
1.82
3.06
6.36
4.43
8.45
3.32
5.04
5.49
7.64
S.D.
robt,
Activity
Activity
2.:,73--Evaluative
::::Ilso-l-Oricnted Activity
- 33.43
E.1:sol-Evaluative
6.0a
6.64
8.04 s
24.25
29.26
18..2o
2
: -.86
1.90
1.62
3.86
6.37
4.49
1
11
7.,20.
5.13
0 9
ib
19.35
-- 8
.
29.8!
7
-
- L5.65
6
.
25.87
6.40
29.70
5
-
19.80
3.39-
:9.w-
28.23
4
5.51
16.75
-24.41
2-.59
-
V=69
24
rose,
3
3.94
-5.74
-
S.D.
Xie
15138
25:25
-`3 --- `9
__,
1.
.:--.=
;-
1
.).-,-,Z=b
Control
5.
3383
7.06
8.55
18.47
28.08
19.04'4"
28.09
19.19
26.06
17.23
26.55
N 53
14
rre
25.23
17.36
25.p11
N=5.3.2°
M
rosu
7.21
8.25
19.87
28.62
19.53
10 11
9
8
20.15
28.08
18.81
27:79-
%
-N.-48
M,
rre
5.58
1.93
1.71
3.61
5.76
4.35
'
.
Academic Self Concept-
19.88
28.79
20.15
1.56
1.18
4
34.19
7.71
8.71
2.79., 20.67
4.27 '29.52
4
2.90
4.23
'2.20
Friends - .Oriented Activity
Success- Responsibility Failure-Resporiqbility.
18.40
26.58
N.48
./4
YOSt
4.81% 27.08
3.22
5.-k6
S.D.
rrp
Ilemediation
33.38" 4.31
7.31
8.63
19.75
30.19
21.10
--6:11-- 30.50
,3.13
5.64
4.46
5.52
S.D.
rote
Friends7EVa1udtive'
,
28.36.
5.85 33.62
2.05
1.35
3.94
6.04
3.90
6.70
3.50 '18.94
5.92
3.70
5,64
'
S.D.
rre
Glasser
4
*
'
4:16
1.64.
1.41
2.93
4.21
3.56
5.71
2.54
4.24
.3.73
5,63
-
S.D.
rost
Self &vicept Scores, Race by Sex by-Treatment-White Females
'TAM
32.70
6.70
8.22
19.48
28.9
19.70
30.14
20.20
26.90
'18.02
27.60
rre 34 N=50
19.92
27.58
19.30
28.92
19.64
26.68
18.64
26.20
N=50
M
rose
5.40
1.95
32.52
-6.80
1.61 ' 8.10
2.77
-4.90
3.17
6.43
2.81
4.86
4.0
6.48
S.D.
rre
Both Treatments
J
.
5.80
2.02
1.52
3.20
5.54,
4.4
6.38
2.67
4.89
,
4.91
6.37
.
S.D.
YOSt
'
,
''
.
-..,.
5 6=
11
10
5.01
.
0
;
,
33 h1
6.38
i7,:
7
1.97
.
1.87
Teachers - Oriente Activ/ty
fepadhers-Evaluative,_
1161O:eiented Actilaty
14e- Evaluat
EValuetive`'.. coo1-0riented,,Act=f-vit
35.13
6 "p1 41..93
-
1.58
-.7.63
9
3.84
5.95
-18. 21
8
i8.16
26. 9 - 5.87
.
h 38
6.97
,
25
9.21
,' 14..
5.02.
3.70
'26..29
7
0.
17 .
6
26.25
,,15..
25%7_
-4- "3-7.2
25.42 42 ,:5 . 00
,
.
3.92r
k
3.,lo
6.64
o5
.
S.D..
4.82
14-.
,
sticcef s9'
21.29
.
4. 31
.
2-1:53.!,
.l
3,.ia
tented 'Activity. onsibk1ity ittibt-Ifty-
,
6.148
a
- 8.82
1
.7'.,48
5.6o
1
6.75
S . D.
rus-&
IP- ,,
4.48
8.69
.. %3.20
.
32.88..
-' 7.53
8.82
6.81
..74
1.29
If -08
27. Ok.....)6, .9bEV
19.88 --2 .82_,.......1 . 82
48- ,25-..
2. 32
1.98.
,
.
,
25. oo
17 ..'14:1
44:9.88 :_f_5-73-- =20.24 ,
Academic Self Copeept
Friend^
4.76
.
25:297 .
N=17'
J4
ro
28:18 6.48 :23.41
19.53
-7:02- -25'. 94 8,66
3.68
6.37,
4.05
4:64
5.27
_
5:75
rre S . D.-
Remedipition
26.47.
`.-1,z16
--___ _____ . .
5;10
3 ,.62,
28.24
N157
,. 14
rre
- Friends -Evaluatiii.e
"35.7
6-.41
8. oo
19 .
8
7
4.35
2.51)-
18.55'. 1.65'
18.73
2
29-.82
20. 23
2. 77 :7.02
1.72
3.63
.20,32
8
20.14---,4.i
300.3
20
.26 .68'
3,76 : 18.82
27. 1 5.14
.
ros
-. 5 74.43
N=22
6.1
..
M
4.5o
, S.D.
ros-i
27.36
N=22
.
N=24 ...--r-'
i.ABLE
Sdores;'llace by Sex by Treatment -Black F41110.1es.
rre,,----rre -11
.04st,
S.D
YOST. M
Self Conce
4.79
18.54
6
.
.
7.25 :
19.13 '4.65
.51r 6.43
17:A
18 3
.
7.08
S:D.
'27. 50
28.17
-
N.-24
11
5
.......5
2
1
I.
scores ere -ere
Control
I
A
'31.22
, 6.94
8.13.
18_39
24.94
19.06
24.56
20 . 39
26.50
I
4.60
,,1.70
1.45
4. b8
8.04
5.12
--873
4.29
6.68
4,:.85.
,
t
33.44
6.28
7.83
20 . 94
28.67
17.00
2.4.56
21 . 50
27.56.
18.39
5.3; :21.56:
rre ..rusc S . D. 14 '&-I8
Both Treatments
18.78'
26.33
N,18
11
rre
S.
5.62
1: 90
1.65
4. 36'
5.51
5.71
10: 25
4.16
.5,.66
5.35
8..15
.
.
----
,-
roLiu ty-,
, S . D.
E.
Covariance Analyses
In flew of the nature of the results discussed previously, this part of the disbussion might have considerable importance.
The writer must assume that
thosynalkOng the followings data are knowledgeable about e, non -ort hogonal multiple covariance design. 5
foil's.
two 'by two fee
statistic
.
The data were analyzed by the covariance procedure 5
rial design having unequal observations per
method altwed for obseri tions of race, sex,-grade, and treatments
111
with the /pupils assign dlby units (ei
se's) rather than by random blocks.
To
determine if the eleven score changes were significantly i different for theZhree 1
I,
'
,,
,
...:
a treatments,'
gr x,ps involved'in the
,
1
plus the
ntrol gronp;analysis of oo-
,
variance
i:
L.
.
L
.
L
,. 1
.
for a non:orthogonal design WAS Utilized fOr each of, the' scores.
this"statistia
In
I4
'aesi
,an:F
value, of 3,87 .was
net sary or'sl.gniadanee ,etttlie
......,
.05
eight \blo,s andlall treatments.
was at slued
ible mean comparisons w
1,
14ben this
evel of confidence
'necessary to ident6...the.besic
.,
7,
source of difi rencp.
This type
of
analy4
provided a measure of the gain scores
\
',,,
. ,
: ion of where the pupilS were made as p flint,
.
tially on he eleven measures of o ,
self-dohcept.
Basically, it is impo
as invdiving t
ant to p
ceive these statistical procedures
pupils astheir Own; Co tzols a to the amount of score changes.
t
School -'Eval tive
\,
. .
An'elysi
of coVarianc
. -,
(Table 7
shored
,
among the blo ks and-treatmp t irate .
.
.
4
,
significant grade, *sex differences
,
'`,
1
ion' effects on the School - Evaluative /
scale.\\The means associated With a significant variance between grades showecL ,
t
the difference-to be the fourth grade evaluating se ool less negativel than the / O Ho.
fifth.
/
.
.
...
Wever, each of t e grades showed a large loss from pre- to post testing,
the fifth grade expressed significantly less pbsitivt 4ttitudes.
'32'4
The significant sex variance on this score is somewhat more diffitult t describe.
Both sexes had a decrease on the School - Evaluative means.
the males decteased the most, -2.62, to -2.29 for the temples. of this Mponitudel this statistically significant
However
With declines
rence takes on less
criticalness in terms ofeducationall. signifilence.
The treatt
F's are
or
difficult to dederibe tend understand.
treatments, T, 1 (Remedial) and T 2 {Glasser) were not significant,
Total
teraction
of T 1 x T '2 was, F = 489-
'Comparison of the adjusted means showed all four groups to.have large losses ,
t
..
,
,
'On this concept.
\
' However, in comparison to the direct treatment cells the
c9n-4
4 proximately ,,'
trol group lost by far thel;est.
The changes of the other cells were 1
the same. $
1
7,,,
-1
.School - Oriented Activi
The analysis of variance reSults for this concept appeared in Tie 8. On this score, the pi total treatments was
ficant,F's were found aMong the treatments.
.16 (F.05 = 2.66). ,For T,1 F='8.76,
interaction of the treatments did not,aPproac effected a significant.change without a maj
Both treatmentS'andthe combination_o
forT
significance.
The F for
2, 448Q.
The
.."
Thus, the treatments,
in;luence from sex, gr
e, or race.
.the,t'Wo were significantly more
effective on this Variable than the contro
group.
treatments was the only one to show a Po
ve gain -score.
Tde 'group involved in both *The-sontrol Eirohp had
a'large loss of this concept: N
ie - Evaluative ,
4
'The Me - Evaluative analysis is
and in Table'9.
The s x g significance
was a re,sult of the fourth:grade and thefemale sex changing the most. 40#
,
Unfortunately
a
. TABLE,- 7
.k
, Analysis of Covariance Surziary: ..Scliool -Eviduatd.ve r
.
Source'
_
- as
....
:
618
M'ACovurpAce,'
e
Treatmeritt X 7310
Treatments + BKS ResiClue.3.
.
MS
-e .1
f
% : Po5
241496,19 .0
39062
899.06
42.81
22,918.19
3906
21
(BKS
,
.
.
* at
,4
,
4
4..57
10 587*
,
A.
'
Adj. for M; Csiyarlance
618
21.,196.19
7
.* 628.88
1
lob.88
yY\
Bloqks
. s x r+,1 \x g
..
r
1'.
t,
1
.;89.84-
.
'2.01'
.
3.85
,
..
/1.38
.
\
3. 5, 1
62:44 .Ar
r
s
.
.3,8
\
5o:34
e
-1.2
,;,., '!'..":3.85
.
g \(grade)
1
'r \C,(Re.ce) s
(Sex)
1 3
T 3.
*
3.
T 1 .2,c 'T
Ericr
tk.
..1
53.3.3
1.
86.73
,
.*
,it
/
191.13
.*6es
,
,
/
/
,3:85
:.0
4.1
3.85
260.18. : .25 94
'.
'.3.85
.
a.61:63
1
5,64
''3.85
:84
1 .
Treatments /Blocks'"
T
222J21i)
,222
,
3.85
- 1.3 i..
3*:85
4'..8 a
*
608
23,76815:,
39.Q9*'
rj e
P
1
r
0
f..
O'
a
.
r
,
T.ABLp 8 Anaaysid of ,Covariance' Summary
Sob.00l-Oriented
$.
df
Source
P05
SAS
.
,,.. Adj.
'618
for M, Caltarialic?
.,.
UireameneX l OM) , Blocks
0 21.
.
.
12,E 917463
**,
20.90
33; 313.,
.'
.15.76
.
137
TTeattents '4,33KS,
,
10 .,
,
587.
Rdid.ual,
Adj. for M, Cova.ri
.'1.2,076.50
618
ce -11'.
.
4
241.61
7
1.\...,
g
.2p.59
12;917.63 ' .
Block( s.x
.76
:
.
34.54
2.01
-1.70
59.,56
3.85
2.92
3.85
.00
3.85
.68
3.85
2.91
'
r x g
1
0.00
sxgt.
.1
13.84
. 1
59.25
s
r
'g 0;04 e
,
lieatmenbp/Blocks
TI
y
e
1'.
64.56
3.85
3.17
1
43.31
3.85
2.13
1.31
3.85
.0g
2.60
4.16
178.141+
3.85
8.76
254.44
3
84.81'
.
1
'
2/T' 1
1"
83.38
3.85
4.80
T1,xT2
1.
29.25
3.85
1.44
trror'.
608
12,382.75
20.37
e
ik
a,
41.
.
//.
the changes on hll four cells were in-the negative direction.
Between pre. and
.
.
/
'post testing -the fifth grade males changed6very little. '
.
,. The T 1 x T 2 significant ipteraction of treatment's, is as perplexing to . .
/
.
A
eyiAain verbally as ail, 'intern Iona' of this type; Ma Nina VonapaSoorto of -the treatment means showed the pobination.of both treatments to have had the -only positive impact.
Since this treatmet'inlmaired both the Glasser and the
remediatiop techniques, each by itself had &negative gain score. .
One hypo-
thesis aboutthe.significont interaction is that the two in combination had differential effect on this concept*
a.
The means for the 7ntrol, Glasser, and
remedial groups were citite similar.
Me = Oriented Activity. On this concept of the'Semaatic Differential., Me - Oriented Activity, dust.
one Twos significant
The_ F of 679-for Treatment1 far'exceedd
level of statistical confidence.
Here, (see Table 10), the rebiediati
clearly more eective than the Glisser op'en-ended discussion treatment
. established group was
Although
the F's for the blocks were. not significazt, \they were controllefor dur the %0 ), analysis of treatment results. The comparison. of the means for race sex .:-
e.
.
showed the black females contributed the largest amount of the-'positi .
change
.
score for the remediation group.
,
Itis realized that the above Inierp etation
must be tempered by the fact that 4s
as a non-orthogonal treatment.
Teacher - Evaluative
On the Teacher - EVoluative Oimension.(Table 11), there were six significant analysis of covariance F's: and 9.58.
?ftWithin the blocks sex N race, and grade Bus weyb,6.02
In addition, the F for total blocks was significant.
.42
At.
/,,-
df
Boni.
//
lid,I.
3
, ....../Sixtta.ry: Itfe...L-V.a1native
Analysis of Co
r.
5
's4
14 Covariance
Zvatmerrts X ticks (Six) Treainient .i- BX5
. X'
,/
6/8
170 .0
2./
06
22.00
16,832.63
28..68
77
1.57
10
57
i?es'icitzal.
..
-
........_._____.
*Acla. for bf., Covariance :
618
Blocks
-2. x g
sx
,4
sxx g
.........-
.
1.84-
.1.
24..19
3.85
.85
1.
30.44
3.85
1.07
,1
231.44
3.85
8.
-I.
.2.38
3.85 .
4.38
(Ctrade.)
2 (Race}
50,81
,
s (Sex)
\ 3'
T1
147.81
.
. T 2/1.) 1
2
T 1.x T 2
N\ ,
1
.,...
.
608. .
,
119.27
,:
.1
5.25
.15
,
3.85
1. 78
3.85
.82
2.60
1.73
3.85
... 18
\-3.'06
.` 3:85
.o4
142.56
3.85
171,38.63, ,
.08
3.85 . _
23.31
.:Treads /Blocks ...
.
7:
.s .x. x. x g
111
17,796.0
RI
28.5o
$
43
.
.5
.c°
.,
.
(37.
4
TAB' LE
10
.
Analysis of CovarianOe''QummarY:
14a-OrienteCt4ctivi'W . .
Source
for M, Covariance
df
SS,
618
7r323.25
Treatxents X:Blcks (BKS)
21.
Treatments
10
BKS
/
8.60
,
1.57
.72.
Residual /
587
Adj. for M, Covariance
618
11.87
6,970.13 ..
,
7,323.25 ..
Blocks,
sxrxg rtg
7
78.06.
1
5.00
11.15
2.01 3.85
.43 .
1
2.88
3.85
.
1
.31
.211-
.
..
s x g
.95
%.'
e
3.85
-.03
c,
1 x r
1
10.75
3.85
/g (Grade)
1
26.31
3.85
r (Race)
1
21.88
3.85
s (Sex)
1
11.0a
3.85
.94
Treatmnts/Blocks
3
2.60
2.41
84.81 .
.92 2.24
'
1.86
s
T1
1
79.81
3.85
6.79
T2 /T 1
1
.06
3.85
.01
1
5.06
3.85
.43
T 1:x Error
28.27
.
T2
608
--
11.75
7,142.75
41.
44
.
.
?'
4
.r-significance Vas due primari3:y 4 blp.C6 and males evaluating .
_
.
, .
;
teachers
.
,' ''
ss negatively than whitep::4nd temales. 'ThiS was especially true of ...1
.
the scores Of White males. 'Although all four groups .(races-by,Sex) showed a. i
,
loss in th
1.
,
evaluative scores of teachers2,when tOmparea to the other three
groups bla
males. had, tlad smailes4loss. #
In
.
rts of;the grade diffetential significance, the fourth
'Significancy less decline in their scores on thiS concept.,
ade eamed
Once aga'n, the
trend was cQx stant. he fourth grade folloid. ng treatmentexpr esspd scores.
indicating ale'sknegatiit attitude ahout.tel chers than the fifth grade.
Yet,
:
each grade had minusgains scores on this concept. The treatment responies,"wtih the blocks held constant, Showed three sig.
'nificant F's.
.
The ,total tor' treatments was significant.
,
.
group', the treatments h ad a less negative effects upon this concept. -.. e -
.
..,
4 .1,
-
Comparedip the control
.4
r
.7
'N.
,
,,
The T 2 gignifl.:9,ant P wakdue to the Glasser treatment group having a more ' positive (le'ssnegative) 'change on 'the scores this concept than either the
a
.
remedial,Or control group
Ittshould be'noted that the combination of 'treat-
ments cell 'showed the largest gain., 'Altfloughsxrxgblocka were not directly involved in thU F, black males gained-by far the most_ when they were involved in'both treatments:
SimilarlyS they, gaited the most when they were involved in
the Glasser progi,emby itself.
'
The significant infer4tion of T 1 x T.2, as is typical,is the most dif.
,
ficult to explain.
,
IL...vinteraction effect was complicated by the fact tYct two
of the' Glasser g rqupp showed positive gain scores and two showed negative.
same lits,true for th$-coMbination of the two treatments group.
However the
remedial treatment groups shed losses on all four cells (race x sex).
The
control gradp. showed a loss on 411 four cells but the lossed were in inverse .
ordei,,tbthos
I.
of-the,remediaion group;
45
The
.
44 E 4.
.4.
e
41,
Gi
Analysis of Covuriailoe Summary: .6
Teachers
.
.
-4 . el.
.
.
J
-
0.
source'
SS
P05
6.6
F 7) .
.
for 14, Covariance
f18
32103.6.3.3 ,
.
treatments X Blocks (BNB)
"Treatments
1,44156:
BKS
68.65
1.57
."1,411,
10
.. .
.
.Residual'
for 161, Covariance
.
587
28
618
32,016.13
7*
71,107.69
4.38
st
fi
48.11 7
"
...:,
Block's
0
x
x g
62
1
.
6.o6
,,
1.28
3'05
!.,'r
.12 6,
-
-,
.
.
.
.
70.3.3
3.85
1.42'
3.85
6.02. '
..-
s
1
r
%
a
29. 00
1
,
4
.
A
g (4raile)
1
A
r Olace)-
i
s(Se4 Treatments /Blocks
1
.
469.44'.
3.65
. 93.00
1
111.19
3 -
836.94
.4
161
I
T 2/11.1
1
5,65
":
278.98
-
9
2.27
2:60:.'
5.69 %-
-
,.- 1,
, 449
3.85
73..06.
615.00
3:85
.,
3.2..5:5`t.
,
T 1 xl 2
310.63
.65
;
608
29,909.75
.-'
.3....9(1: .:
)
-'3.$5,
..
.,
..Error
.4tI.
,
- 3,-85
xg
1,
3.23
2.01 E
1
x g:
'158.24./
29.00
46
6.34
'::' 1
Oriented Activity
eCea
.
4
The data of ,Table 12 consist 'clit)ae analysisfof the
Activity responses.. OnAhb blocks'44mpnsion of the
ers - Oriented
atIstical design, the
.
.._
ianceS diffewedas_topLL.dOnc_lsex.-
1
Alcant El's Tkre total treatments, T2,and the interaction of T;t.
...--0,
--....
se
-/
.
In the treatment dimensuall the
x T2.
differeace mas statistieal.ly. significant due to the superiorityof the , .
sco es of the msies'owthis scale. °
They showed a very slight loss between pre-
..
Sttreatments while the females \
,-,,
ad approximately. one-half a point decline.
Sind` thee' 1? of '.85 for grades p as significant, the .
Tes ted it the
that.the.fo
,
-
"-----L-,.',-, .
,
h grade varied little from -pre-to post
i
451.rrOwhile the ftifth grgde s
ed a relatiV
- large
.
Vie total,,effeet of the tr tments
)
r/ two treatmebt'i,'..one
S.
qmparison df means
.
was sigai
.
.
loss, -1k06%'
.
significant% F --.1.t5./01./ Of the
emediation, F
4.21: On this concept,,
repvdiation alone,Was mote eff tiVe than the combination of both and dianly 'siaperior 'to the controlgiouP I
The interaction effect of treatments, T1 x.T2 = 12.18.
Tke group receiving
- ;"'both treatments lost almost as much as the score of the cobtrolgroup. ,
me141bY itself, was clearly superior to the control group.
Each treat-
However, all four
.groups declined on this concept.
Friends - Evaluative On the Friends - Evaluative concept (Table 13) there were two significant analyses of covariance.
The total blocks was significant'(F = 2.47). -
However,
of the seven blocks only -one was significant, sex x race x grade..' The significance of the combination of these three blocks appears to be due
-
to the clear superiority-of the scores of males-T-of-blaai, of the'fifth grade on
47
-
I
:.
/
1' '1
TABLE 12
/
Analysis of Covariance Summary:
df
Source
Treatment X Blocks (BKS)
p05'
11,329.
21
BKS
.Treatments
SS
618
Adj for M, Covariance
Teachers - Oriented Activity
20 .
433.5
5
1.57
'1.18
2.01
.6o
10
Residual
587
10,285:06
;7.52
4
Adj. for M, Covariance
"
618
11, 329.00
c
7
Blocks
284.50
s,x r X g
.31
r x g
34.19
x g
3.14
s x r
«J.
102
3.85'
1.9. .20
85'
44.94
r
,
g (Grade)
3.
2.55
.
3.85
r (Race)
3.89
11.13
-max
,
.630
1
s (Sex)
,
\ 3.85
-167.75'
88.24
Treatments/Blocks T 1
3.85
74.06 .4
185
T 2/1" .
.
T 2
3 8_ -e*
214.50
,
10,707,94
,Error
Ac
17.61
4
I
2.60
. .
4.
218
J) this concept.
While females had a negative gain score, the males Went'in the i
t.
opposite direction.
k
The-same was ,true of race al id. grade scores.
,-......_
'
Friends - Oriented Activity
,,,
'
The Friends - Oriented Activity scale, Table 14, produced two significant F's.
The combination of sex x rice x grade was again significant.
In contrast
to certain of the school variables, all six cells showed gains from the pre- to post testing period..
The sex x race significance was due to the impro ement of scores,of the \
females and blacks. of .188.
\
-
Females bad airitive gain score of .8641\the male
WhAesincreased .425 while the blacks' had a
/
a, plus
an gain\of,.796:\
*sting Responsibility for Successes 1\
/
On this first'of the two scores on the t
academic reso ibility 4
scales (Table l5),; there were just two signi
'
.
I
/
.
.
analyses of cov> lance.
.were the differences in the taking of respons and by the sexes.
These
1
for succ
Note - The mean range for`Jthese .
oTscores was eleven, 0 - 10.
,
..
The significant F for the grades was
larthe-gradirS'
\,
6
-Once agan. .the data are coma\I --''' ' plicated bythe fact that all foure6ils, two by grades and two by sexes, showed ,
.
r
.
-
,>
..
.
negative gain scores. gain score.
teg change for the fifth giide was -.125.
The significant
.
sex
difference
-
was primarily 'due
to the smallness of the'
\
,
.
variances.
2\
However, the fourth grade showed the largest negative
,
Males decreased 'bn this concept .22,0 whi4ethe females had a gain ' .
score of -.316.'-
-
'
49
/
,
Pk,
1
TABLE 13 Analysis of'Covariance Summary:
Friends-Evaluative
SS
/
..----,: Ana
.
eatments x Block's
eatmedts
.
,
I.
728.31
34.68
4,68.94
33.54
,
1.57
1.03
2.03.
.2.47
.
/
10
,
p05
/.
20,980.31,
{Bits)
+13fd'
Residual
A
618
for M, Covariance
MS-
587
-
;t
_Adj. for bk, /Covari
ce
.
20,980.31!..
618 ..,
579481'
Blocks
82.8'3*
i
3.85/
291.50
s, x r x.g' .
..
.
r x g
-
.
vdt
106.56
1
4
s x g
3.
s x r
'
3:
r (Racet)
,
.38
,
,
.
g,_(Gradel__`
\
30.63/
...
/
'..
,/
_1, ,
41.25.
.1440
.' I
.
,.
8,69
_,,.....
3.85__-
3.1
3.85
..
3..85
01
3.85
.23
3.85
1..37._ --......_
1
s (Sex)
nts/Blockg
Tree.
.06.
1.
\
1
3
,
,
.1
15. 8'
I
.
5.1
3.85
1.94.
2.60
.15
3.85
.08
3.85. -4
.25
'Or
T
2/1' 1
T 1 tc T
2.69
1
T,...
1
.
,1
2
8.31, 4.38
..
3.85 ,
.
error .-
.
,
.13 ,
.
608.
.
20,400.50
...
33
50
§
,
000
`..
TABLE .1.4,4
/
I : 1,
Analysis of,wveriance Summary:
Friends-
Tented Activity
*
SS
Source.
MS.
p05
..
.
/ ,.
Adj. for M, Coyariance
618
8;026.31 '' 4 ,
TreatmentsX Blocks (BKS)
21
220.31
-.
1.57
10.49.
OFIL
.81
1
Treatments 4. BKS
10 1
-7,605.75
Residual
618
. for 'M, Covarfanca'
12:96
.8,026::31. .
4
Blocks
7
18.62
s' 130.31
/
`2.0
,
1.45,
,
,
S _x. r- X--g-
3.
/
49.631
.
3.8
3.87
.,
\
r x
1/
g
.o6A
.
A
s x g
S x.4
2
X
.
1
' .
g (Grade),
3.7
.
/
88
47.06
..-:-3:85
\
,
1
3.85
/ ',
N
.V
2.0 3.
,
.8
\
a. (Race)
1
s (Sex)
.1
.63
3
32.38
1
20.75
.19
-w'
3.85
.46
3.85
.01
5.85
.05.
2.60
.84
3.85
1.62
3.85
.36
3.85
.55
.
s
-:-
..0o,
.
'
,
,
Treatments/BloCks
T.1
10.79
It-
.
.
2 /T 1
\
1
4.56 ,
T1 x T 2 Error
-
7.0644
.
4.
6o8
7,806.00
Ir
.12.84
t9\
p
4
51. 1
.4
r
/
!/
.
LE 15 I 1
t
Analysis of C9V(ariAnce Summary:
i
sponsibility f r Succe
cs
,
,
I
,
Source
.\\
df
SS,
618
1,758.64
NIS
N p01
,.
F4
,
I.
7,
Adj. for M, Covariance Treatments. X Blocks (BO)
21,
2.01
'142.1
1.57
/
Treatments' + BKS
10
,
/ ,
Residual
/
587
1,175.65
'
/2.85
,
\
1
A. for M, Co
618
ance
1178.64
,
N
;
/
:
)
tocks
30.91
7
,___.
2.ol
4,.42 .
'sxrx, g
I
/
r i g '
1
1.56
/
3*85
.47
.85
'.o5
.85
1.19
.
/
1
s x g f
,,
-3.26'
;,---:-
7/ ,
.
j
,
,.....
s x x(
,
.
1
.02'
,
3.85
,
.61 i
1
,
!
1
k
g Orade)-
1
-...---
10.63
35'
\
r (Race)/
3.8
\
4
,
1
\\11..01
.
:
1.58
\
i
s (Sex)
.
.1
L85 .9(1
*$
eatmentsiglocks T 1
3 .
's
\ 14.4
1.51
2.
.54 '
L 1
3.8\-
\
.52 ..
........,
3.85
,
.05 \st
Til x T ,Error
1
608
3.8y
3.88
1,716.2
\
12082'
37
T
I
4
I
1
41akin R
ai /
'Of
of the efern.an
variance, T le 16 16,
1
by -fail,the most
,
.
t
/ t
i
difficult to dedoribe.'Lliere is, ound
icant F
tot
for
1
,totali treatments, and for the int
ction o
4 T2.
In a
n there was i
I
\significan
4
,
1
seX difference: : i \
.
,
The
!
i
_
,
tel blocks signife cewas due
one
lk
,...
.
jor change in the
,
,
,
blocks (sex,;i = 10.06) and tio
,
on
sin.ficay
.
.
-
.., .
.1/
In terMs of the -iffierence between. the sexes o
ing responsibility for
/
Tq
failures, the gir
had a minuse
These'
1
if
were race (F = 2.97) and. sex x grade (F =,2.
I./
r
)
but f irly large 4hange .-
aLangedthe least during the pe od of the project. -They: diff kence score of -.03.
ing to accept his
The males involved. became ,Less
will-
e of responsibility. t
Although the .total treatments score was significant neither pf indivitl i
treatments was significant.
Thus little information was gained from this fin
'Theil x T2,interactign appears trhdictory findings.
o be a r suit of several seeMingy con-----
There was an overall 1
laiS'OOniepil between and
among treatments. °1ihen the remediati n group se cothination group lost.
Fadt is the
cores of
d. to have made 4 gain the
e grOup receiving both treat-
mentd were quite shriller to those of t e contr 1 group.
cademic Self-Concept
1
The results of Table 17 are\self-appar .
dr treatments was.statisticelly s covariance on this concept werelve
ftcant.
t"
Not a one of the F's for blocks ,
Fact is, all
\
the\analyses of
.
"'
TABLE 16 ,
sis o
7.
°'
.
e'
CoVariance Summary:
Rebpontitility for Pailures
t
p05 s* 0,j. for M, Co
I\
iance
I ,
,
Treatments Iflialocks'0 ,
:
4
1
'50.54
1.57
2.41
I
Treatments i. B
/
;110/
,4-1.
f
Residual
ft
ir4
..
.
'I ' Adj.i''ifor M Covariance
2,260332
.587
if
,
1
4
'i
/
I
618'
2,380.83/ i
t'
/'.
.72.1\,
7 c.41
2
10.*
.o1
2.70 .
1.1.
.21i
.85
,1:10 t
f.
r x g ,,
... 47
1 .: "
ace)
e
-
N5
'1 Il
':
.85
3
.85
10.91
1
x T 2
1
\
.60
i
1
1.9?
2.97
.$5
.
32.72
00.,*
(
7
-8.55
6.
.18'
#
11.38
Sex)
2.57
.
./.69
-
locks
.3.
..
3 i85
.
"IS' *..r
,
I
\ g Grade)
1:.85
.
,
e
,
,
\.\
1
.c)...06
2.85:
L
.
5.80
3.85
.'
1.51
1
1
.32
26.59 ,2,33b:30
$.85
.o8
3.85
6.91+
3.83 II ,
-
5 .1
4.
a
TABLE 1,7
1
I
Analysis g. Covariana Surgnart:, Acadpic Self Concep ,
-
r
Sourob .
4
bo5
ms
SS
.`
618
1311148.00
Treatments .X Blocks IBIS)
21
.459..63
Treatments ± BKS
10
Adj. for M. Covariance Ir
V
'
1.001
,1.57
.
.1
i87
3:2,816..31
. 'for M, Covariance -1 618
13`,148.6o
Residual
21.83, .11
78..14
Blocks.
11.21
201,
-
.52
$
1
10.63
s x
.
.
3.$5
g.,
.5,o
.08
a'.
.
s-x g
S.69
r
:75
s
.g (Orb.de
r p
r (Rand)s .(Sex)
*
/-
X 2/T 1
T1x 'Error
=
2
.17
30.81.
3.85
. 1./4
4.31
!3.85
4.63 .'
3.85
"
0
.
.1
Treirtinents/Btocks..
3.85
28.13
3 3.
'26.69
1
'. 1.69
1.25
.0
.4 .25
g,.6o
-9.34
.
1
.3.85
6o8
12,9.88.38
..
0.00
'21.36
55
.
.o8
s
.
-
Brief Htmmary and Conclusions of
ults
Although the result's of this project were notoonclusive enough to clearly 1111
support either of the two treatments, the Self-conejclianges in this short period of time were encouraging.
,
Whether 'or pot these self-concept character-
istics of the pupils of the' fourtgh and fifth grades. of the Kankakee, Illinois
school system generalize to others is not known.
However, they are supportive
of the innovation systems utilized.
Possibly, the self-concept scoresrelated to schools were quite startling and:a little disappointing.
The.use of these descriptive terms-was tlresult of
th e large negative,gain scores on'all of the school related concepts. :School and +
teachers yere the two concepts Which showed the greatest evaluative losses., As stated previously, it is not known if these results'generalize,
buifthey do,
then one must conclude, or strongly hypothesize,that4schools and school related
toncepts are perceived increasinglynre negative, as the pupils progress from the lower to the higher grades.
It should be notedthat the pupils of the -CrestI
.ment groups showed somewhat less negativism about school, teachers, and academic self - concept than the control group., If this Oharacteristt of negativism
toward school-and school related activities is broader than the Kankakee schools, 4
'/---
r
then future researchers in this area musfacknowledge the fact that a,small or .
zero change froi a lower to an upper grade is one of positive-growth. ,
. Yet, the social self-concept scores and the Gestalt lebeled. as,',Ne" did.
k not stuar losses for the treatment groups.
It is not known-why there was an
insignifiCant re.lationship- beteen the 'school and social variables.
For some
reason, as school and. teachers Were 1:erteived more negativellythe perception of
fiiends and self did not decline.
56
. , Although the following is of a trgul nature since the treatment period
was quite short, it should be incorporated the thinkihg about the future by the staff of the school systems
it.
One of the primary reasons there were 11,7A more
race diffeiences was the fact that the responses of black males were quite
different from those,of,blackfeMeles.
In the same'direction, but to a lesser
degree, white females differed from white males.
The, group of black males tended
to show the greatest positive' Changes in self-concept when they were involved .
in a Glasser open-ended discussion treatment group,
Tnis was not true of black
z.
.females.
White females, as compared to blacks, responded more positively to
the remediation program.
The combination of the -two treatments produced in-
consistent results.' For 'certain concepts it was the most effective of the
treatments.
For others, it &haired little; if any improvement ovethe control
group., The reasons "*hy" were not partof this systematic design but should be investigate`d in future projects.
Based Upon piqvious research, more change of
6144
positive .
0
ature in the 'self-concepts of pupils took place in this project
than could h ve been'tsgdcipated.
f.
Bibliography \ \
.
.
_
\
,
.
.
Brookover, Er: B.
'Self Concept of Academic Ability Scale." In Self concept and School Achievement; Educational Publication Servicei, Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan ,1962.
Crandall, J., Katovsky,-W., Cran0p11, H. Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire. 'child Development, 1965, 36, 107-118; .
.
,
-
.
N
, .
Edwards, A. L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research, New York: Rinehart & Winston, 196qt.
Holt, .
.
Glasser, W.* Sehools Without Failure.
New York:
Harper and Bow
blithers, 1969..
Kirk, R. W. Experimental Design: Procedures fox the Behavioral Sciences. Cole Publishing Co. Belmont, Calif., 1968.
Brooks
..
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
..
,
.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G.J. and Tannenbaum, P. H.: The Measurement of Meaning. The Universitrof Illinois Press, Urbana, 1957..
.
.
,
.
Thorndike,' E.,& Lorgel'I. The Teacher's Word Book of 30,000 Words. 13;114:of lUbls Teachers-College, Columbia University, 19414,..
New York:
r'-`
6
REPORT ON "HAVE A STUDENT HELP" HOTLINE
4'.
The purpose of tilt "Have A Student Help" Hotline was
to faCilitate OOmmunicatiOns 'betweenthe school and students , as well as parents. The assumption was that-Students would .
be' Mord- willing to communicate and discu'ss problems with .
4
their Own unknown 'peers than they seem to be with Counselors, Teachers ctr Parents, We .had hoped the-.natural curiosity ., .
. . youngsters between the ag0 off' twelve and fifteen Woulf .
4,
,,,
.,
.
"
b
_
'
1
provoke questions on:a variety of iasuei'w7.th which there is peat concern, such as sex, 'alcohol, drilgsy- sibling rivalry, . . -. . ''f' pe,rsonal,..hygene litg rumors around the school. .c' ' ,
-
.
;4
.
The
..,
.
.
.
s.
' t
fOitline got underway Satu.rda.f.November 1, 19.70,*
following. an eX(ellent feature; article -in the local news-, paper, flyers 'for each student ,, bulletins' 4,-n the Middle and Upper Grade ,Centers and posters.
During the, course of the'.pperation. theuge-media were 'supported by ads in the .
'
.
,
classiried "Per'p,dia.1" sectidp 'of the newspaper'? the Principal=s' 6 newsletter to 'all parents, taped calls_ on a local. teen .
-
.
piograil, on WKAN 'and, annp.ncements---13.-3Z-La:ri-r90--13u'ack- "Super:-.1'ock"
on WIS Chicago. The students sufho worked on the, Hot line , two :boys, one .
1
-
blaOk and one white and two girls,. one- black and one whi4,0, Wer e briefed. the Director on, possible ,c.a.3le and .Possl,ble , -satuations. 'Each st ,dent was given a referral al-wet; th4t they could use in' case they had., a call that indicated .
referral.. The Director' was present eseic.h Saturday in ,case. of animmodiato .:referral.
60
-40
t
ografti started slower than we. had expected and.
The
throughoutre fOund calls 5D be somewhat superficial.
No
one knows' f
surk, except the Dealer, if such things as
being short,
at, or having too many boyfriends smacks of
,urgency.%
ue we could have discovered a lot of basic
problems if our student heles had, been, -therapists rather than pr e7adolesc"Onts.
felt a .need to g
It was not their, fault that they
instant and'pat- answers to Our callers.
ar5versly
Our rate of c lls was
.
.
e:f'fected by :bia' r :.
.
closing
.
.
,
doyn two Saturdays Dyer the ChAqstmas Hol.idays atid by the ''c.
2 beginning of a gout
.
.
Hotline -(around 'the clock) .starting
around the end of th
year.
by several religious
rga.kilia at ions in the community and it
This youth' Hotline was sponsored
.
is "still in existence.
We had another handicap'in that we
a
used the phone number
,
the school Systei.
e the switch-
.01
..!
.. :
ej
-
0
#
; :board was not. set up fo ...
our line and one aatuidaymorning
,
.
we A,gere unable t a .receiv
calls becaUse the telephone
-.:,: ...
i.
..
-
company was moving a set .
.
f lines" from poIes 'to underground.
.4..-'
Several W, '.0
'of the icalls I were
the school
offices-
..
Duiti
,a late March and
'4115.ng students and ask\thems ..
',..^.
^,,.
"t; "-
.
sdryit:p and if weA could-help I..0
II
,
..
^.. ."
i
WLS
e
be.s.6 publicity and calls picked .up again after
o be -01$114!
,'/"'1 '. ^,: ..;," : , R'
.
and gen rally these calls were omitted.
We found the annduncements by Lujabk
fr-010,Atle .log.
-
rom people. Wanting someone. in
0
,
pril lull, ye, decided.
bat" t ey
though' .
Q,,Ury
of. bur
m with...anything. since we
jo
61 4
.
,
.
.
:
.^
r"
,
.
were on the line.
r
.
,
,
,
All agNed that it Was a good idea and
that they
call all if th9y had any, problems. 0
Tlie Studdntso we contacted were recommende
gounselprs as people-w4o had prob1eMs in .; .
.
by. school
,,
s,
,
ne area or ginother.
,
We also ascertained during these cAas:th t the time's1 t a,
,,
,
.
on Saturday morning frorrA:d0 till 1:,,O0 , ,. ,.
"
,
.
,..
as not a gre t
-
.
factor one WSJ: or the other..'. Eveprone:yscontacted was .
iil.
up, awake and free to make phonescallo.
.
. ,
In evaluating I would, suggest the assumption that pre.
., ,
adolescents would be more aptot talk with their unknown
,
.
4
peers is invalid.
4
They get mo8t-bf the,. ir information from
peers, but they do not call them if they are unknown. fact is just th,-., i,dwerse.
The
I believe'they-woula be more apt
P
to call an unknown persoh if he or she were more mature. One of our helpers indicated in hii written comments that_
be overheard a student saying.,
!!
Those Hotline people
-don't know anymore about solving - problems than we do!!. I have already indicated anothri problem that our helpers found difficult to cope -with --they felt----a-need-togive'a -quick answer and could not relax enough to calmly discuss
problems in any depth. I would not recommend continuing this progyam with, its present structure.
I do feel that any program designed to 4
increase communications between the schodls and their clients would be invaluable during these trying times.
delft
cf(3;
1? 2/
/
cdoin/9 44 ;(-e-d, -.
229-)
-021-e ezzi
6,4-4,ozre
..ze/i.a74-10.e
Ad./ -!1 .-'1-072
ji -41.1Z,Vr- C24,7-eet-1-/-?
Lihat lebih banyak...
Comentários
